Madras High Court
Martin Rethinasamy vs / on 30 November, 2021
Author: N.Anand Venkatesh
Bench: N.Anand Venkatesh
C.S.No.254 of 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated :30.11.2021
Coram:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
C.S. No.254 of 2017
Martin Rethinasamy .. Plaintiff
/versus/
1. Amirtha and Santha Inc.
Office at Madras Palace,
15 Wertheim Court,
Richmond hill, Ontario,
Canada L4B3H7.
2. Chiral Purushotham
Office at Madras Palace,
No.19, Fulham Street,
Scarborough,
Ontario, M1S2A3,
Canada.
3. Santha Purushotham
Office at Madras Palace,
No.19, Fulham Street,
Scarborough,
Ontario, M1S2A3,
Canada. ..Defendants
1/5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
C.S.No.254 of 2017
Prayer: Civil Suit has been filed under Order VII, Rule 1 of the C.P.C.
Read with Order IV, Rule 1 of the High Court Original Side Rules,
praying to pass a judgment and decree for:-
(a) directing the Defendants jointly and severally to pay the plaintiff
a sum of Rs.1,01,07,725/- together with further interest at 15% per
annum on the principal sum of Rs.69,76,500/- from the date of plaint till
realisation;
(b) directing the defendants to pay to the costs of the suit;
For Plaintiff :No Appearance
------
JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel who was appearing on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the plaintiff has got back the bundle and change of vakalatnama has been given. Yet another counsel, who appeared submitted that she has filed change of vakalatnama for the plaintiff and she is yet to get the papers and necessary instructions from the plaintiff.
2. This Court while passing an order on 09.11.2021, specifically 2/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.254 of 2017 fixed time for recording evidence today at 3.30 p.m. This Court also directed the proof affidavit to be served on the learned counsel for the defendants on or before 24.11.2021. Both these directions given by this Court has not been complied with. The proof affidavit has not been served on the learned counsel for the defendants and the plaintiff is not present before this Court for recording evidence.
3. This is not the first occasion where the plaintiff has committed such a default. Even earlier, the plaintiff failed to file the affidavit of admission and denial of documents, inspite of being given an opportunity, time and again. Ultimately, this Court left with no other option passed an order on 23.09.2021, recording the fact that the plaintiff has not filed the affidavit of admission and denial and hence, the documents filed on the side of the defendants shall be admitted. The conduct of the plaintiff even today is only a continuation of what was happening during the previous hearings.
4. The suit is of the year 2017 and even recording of evidence has 3/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.254 of 2017 not commenced in this case. Considering the conduct of the plaintiff, the present Civil Suit is dismissed for default. Connected Applications are closed, if any. There shall be no order as to costs.
30.11.2021 Index:yes/no nsa To The Sub Assistant Registrar, Original Side Section, High Court, Madras.
4/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S.No.254 of 2017 N.ANAND VENKATESH. J., nsa C.S.No.254 of 2017 30.11.2021 5/5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis