N.Chidambaram vs. R.Chitra
AI Summary
A land dispute spanning over 17 years involving possession of survey plots in Aranthangi has been dismissed by the Madurai High Court for non-prosecution after the appellant failed to argue the case despite repeated adjournments. The case involved conflicting possession claims over two adjacent survey plots with a commissioner's report indicating divided possession between the parties.
Case Identifiers
Petitioner's Counsel
Respondent's Counsel
eCourtsIndia AITM
Brief Facts Summary
The case originated as an Original Suit (OS No.117 of 2007) filed in the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi, concerning ownership and possession of land plots in Aranthangi. The District Munsif Court rendered judgment on 19.12.2019. The case was then appealed to the Sub Court, Aranthangi (AS No.5 of 2020), which confirmed the District Munsif's judgment on 27.01.2021. Dissatisfied, N. Chidambaram filed a Second Appeal (SA(MD) No.471 of 2021) in the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court on 22.03.2021. A court-appointed commissioner conducted a survey and reported that the plaintiff was in possession of Survey No. 155/19 while the defendants were in possession of Survey No. 155/20. An amendment petition was subsequently filed by the defendants alleging encroachment of Survey No. 155/20. The case was referred to mediation on 04.04.2022, but the appeal remained pending. On 29.07.2024, the High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution due to the appellant's counsel's failure to argue the case despite repeated adjournments.
Timeline of Events
Original Suit (OS No.117 of 2007) filed in District Munsif Court, Aranthangi regarding land ownership and possession
District Munsif Court, Aranthangi passed judgment in OS No.117 of 2007
Appeal filed in Sub Court, Aranthangi (AS No.5 of 2020)
Sub Court, Aranthangi confirmed the District Munsif's judgment in AS No.5 of 2020
Second Appeal (SA(MD) No.471 of 2021) filed in Madurai Bench of Madras High Court
Second Appeal registered in High Court
First hearing before Justice A.D. Jagadish Chandira for admission of appeal
Motion list hearing; admission adjourned
Hearing before Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice V. Bhavani Subbaroyan; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice R. Vijayakumar; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice R. Vijayakumar; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice R. Vijayakumar; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice R. Vijayakumar; notice of motion
Hearing before Justice R. Vijayakumar; notice of motion
Interim order passed by Justice Krishnan Ramasamy referring matter to Mediation and Conciliation Centre; parties directed to appear before mediation centre
Hearing before Justice G. Ilangovan; case listed for declaration (SA)
Hearing before Justice G. Ilangovan; case listed for declaration (SA)
Hearing before Justice G. Ilangovan; case listed for declaration (SA)
Final hearing before Justice G. Ilangovan; Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution
Key Factual Findings
The appellant's counsel was not ready to argue the matter despite repeated adjournments
Source: Current Court Finding
Even after a specific order, the appellant's counsel was not ready to argue the matter
Source: Current Court Finding
According to the commissioner's report, the plaintiff was in possession of Survey No. 155/19 and the defendants were in possession of Survey No. 155/20
Source: Recited from Lower Court Judgment / Commissioner Report
An amendment petition was filed by the defendants stating that the defendants encroached Survey No. 155/20
Source: Recited from Respondent Pleading
Primary Legal Issues
Secondary Legal Issues
Questions of Law
Statutes Applied
Petitioner's Arguments
The appellant, N. Chidambaram, through his counsel, sought to challenge the decree and judgment passed by the Sub Court, Aranthangi (dated 27.01.2021) which had confirmed the judgment of the District Munsif Court, Aranthangi (dated 19.12.2019). The appellant contended that the lower courts' decisions were erroneous and sought to establish his ownership and possession rights over the disputed survey plots. However, the specific arguments were not articulated in the final hearing as the appellant's counsel was not ready to argue the matter.
Respondent's Arguments
The respondents, R. Chithra and R. Gowtham, through their counsel Mr. M. Suresh, submitted that according to the commissioner's report, the plaintiff (appellant) was in possession of Survey No. 155/19, while the defendants were in possession of Survey No. 155/20. The respondents contended that the lower courts' judgments were correct and should be upheld. They further noted that an amendment petition was filed by the defendants stating that the defendants had encroached upon Survey No. 155/20, which was the subject matter of the dispute.
Court's Reasoning
The High Court, presided over by Justice G. Ilangovan, observed that despite repeated adjournments, the learned counsel on record for the appellant was not ready to argue the matter. The court noted that even after a specific order directing the counsel to be prepared, the counsel remained unprepared. The court reasoned that no purpose would be served in keeping the Second Appeal pending any further. Consequently, the court exercised its discretionary power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution, a procedural ground that does not require examination of the merits of the case. The court also closed the connected miscellaneous petition and declined to award costs.
- Emphasis on procedural compliance and readiness of counsel
- Pragmatic approach to case management by dismissing cases where no progress can be made
- Preference for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms (mediation) in property disputes
Impugned Orders
Specific Directions
- 1.Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution
- 2.Connected miscellaneous petition stands closed
- 3.No costs awarded
Precedential Assessment
Persuasive (Other HC)
This is a single bench order of the Madurai Bench of Madras High Court dealing with procedural dismissal for non-prosecution. While it does not establish new substantive law, it provides guidance on case management and the consequences of counsel's unpreparedness in appellate proceedings. The order is persuasive authority for other High Courts and lower courts in similar procedural situations.
Tips for Legal Practice
Legal Tags
Disclaimer: eCourtsIndia (ECI) is not a lawyer and this analysis is generated by ECI AI, it might make mistakes. This is not a legal advice. Please consult with a qualified legal professional for matters requiring legal expertise.
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Notice Of Motion
Before:
Hon'ble Honourable Mr Justice R.Vijayakumar
Listed On:
4 Apr 2022
Order Text
SA(MD) No.471 of 2021
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction ) Monday, the Fourth day of April Two Thousand and Twenty Two
PRESENT
The Hon`ble Mr.Justice KRISHNAN RAMASAMY
SA(MD) No.471 of 2021
N.CHIDAMBARAM ... APPELLANT / APPELLANT / PLAINTIFF
Vs
1 R.CHITHRA
2 R.GOWTHAM ... RESPONDENTS/ RESPONDENTS/ DEFENDANTS
Petition filed praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court may be pleased to set aside the decree and judgment passed in AS No.5 of 2020 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Aranthangi dated 27.01.2021 confirming the decree and judgment passed in OS No.117 of 2007 dated 19.12.2019 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Aranthangi by allowing this Second Appeal.
ORDER : This petition coming up for orders on this day, upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.K.BAALASUNDHARAM, Advocate for the petitioner and of MR.M.SURESH, Advocate for the respondents 1 & 2, the court made the following order:-
The learned counsel appearing for the respective parties submitted that there is a possibility for settlement, if the matter is referred to mediation.
2.Hence, Registry is directed to refer this matter before the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, attached to this Bench. The parties are directed to appear before the Mediation Centre, after receiving notice from the mediation centre.
3.Post this matter after completion of mediation process along with report.
sd/- 04/04/2022
/ TRUE COPY /
/ /2022 Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023.
https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, ARANTHANGI.
2 THE DISTRICT MUNSIF, ARANTHANGI.
COPY TO: THE CHIEF CO-ORDINATOR, MEDIATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE, MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT, MADURAI.
ORDER IN SA(MD) No.471 of 2021
Date :04/04/2022
CP MK/VR/SAR.IV/07.04.2022/2P/4C
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order