S.BALAJI M/S. SRIMATHI vs PRABAKARAN(died) — SA/720/2021

Case under U/s 100 of C.p.c Section 21. Disposed: Contested--DISMISSED on 20th April 2026.

Case disposed

CNR: HCMA011051342021

Filing Number

SA/75386/2021

Filing Date

25-Aug-2021

Registration No

SA/720/2021

Registration Date

31-Aug-2021

Judge

Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

Coram

Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

Bench Type

Single Bench

Category

SECOND APPEAL ( 169 )

Sub-Category

S. 100 CPC ( 1 )

Judicial Branch

JUDICIALSECTION

Decision Date

20-Apr-2026

Nature of Disposal

Contested--DISMISSED

Last updated 14-May-2026

Acts & Sections

U/s 100 of C.p.c Section 21

Petitioner(s)

  1. 1.S.BALAJI M/S. SRIMATHI

Respondent(s)

  1. 1.PRABAKARAN(died)

    Adv. AOS NOT FILED REG R3,PRIVATE NOTICE ORDERD TO R3 DT 11/9 /23,r3 - insufficient address,---------------,private notice,R1- DIED / R2 IS RECORDED AS LRS OF THE DECEASED R1, VIDE C/O DATE 10/4/2026,p.mohan kumar for r4,m/s.a.palaniappan,R3 - INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS,P.K.VASUKI FOR RR1 AND 2,P.VEDITHA,P.MOHANKUMAR 1123

  2. 2.BABU

  3. 3.M.BANU

  4. 4.J.RENUGA

Case History

  1. Case disposedDisposed

  2. 20-Apr-2026

    Honourable Mr.Justice S. SountharView PDF

    Summary: The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal seeking specific performance of a 1994 sale agreement for Rs.43,500. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligation, noting he waited 13 years before issuing a pre-suit notice and admitted taking no steps to complete the transaction during this period. Although the agreement contained an 8% interest clause suggesting time was not of the essence, the court held the plaintiff could not wait indefinitely and should have paid within reasonable time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

  3. 20-Apr-2026

    Notice Of Motion

    Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

  4. 15-Apr-2026

    Notice Of Motion

    Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

  5. 10-Apr-2026

    —View PDF

  6. 10-Apr-2026

    Notice Of Motion

    Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

  7. 02-Apr-2026

    Notice Of Motion

    Honourable Mr.Justice S. Sounthar

  8. 25-Sep-2023

    Notice Of Motion - Sa Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish Chandira

  9. 11-Sep-2023

    Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish ChandiraView PDF

  10. 08-Sep-2023

    Notice Of Motion - Sa Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish Chandira

  11. 25-Aug-2023

    Notice Of Motion - Sa Cases

    Honourable Mr Justice A.d.jagadish Chandira

  12. 20-Oct-2021

    For Admission

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammal

  13. 20-Sep-2021

    Honourable Mrs.Justice S.kannammalView PDF

  14. 20-Sep-2021

    First hearing

    Initial hearing scheduled

  15. 25-Aug-2021

    Case filed

    Registration No. SA/720/2021

casestatus.in Summary

Summary: The Madras High Court dismissed the plaintiff's second appeal seeking specific performance of a 1994 sale agreement for Rs.43,500. The court upheld the lower courts' findings that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness to perform his contractual obligation, noting he waited 13 years before issuing a pre-suit notice and admitted taking no steps to complete the transaction during this period. Although the agreement contained an 8% interest clause suggesting time was not of the essence, the court held the plaintiff could not wait indefinitely and should have paid within reasonable time. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.

Explore other courts

District Courts Supreme Court
Search Another Case