A.S.No.23 of 2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 24.09.2025 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR A.S.No.23 of 2013 1. P.Zeabal 2. P.Kamaradjou 3. P.Elangovan 4. P.Chinnadurai 5. P.Singaravelou 6. S.Vadivambal 7. T.Arumugam @ Sridar 8.R.Krishnan 9.P.Karumbal ...Appellants Vs. 1.Gandhimathi 2. M.Tamizselvi 3.S.Govindammal (Exparte) 4.M.Parameswari 5. R.Manjula 6.R.Gowri 7.R.Muthukumaran 8.R.Vinoth 9.R.Usha 10.R.Suganthi 11.R.Prabavathy 12.R.Narasimman 13.P.Vaithianathan 14.P.Karthikesan 15.P.Karthiga ...Respondents 1/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.23 of 2013 PRAYER: Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, praying to set aside the preliminary decree and judgment passed in OS.No.53 of 2010 dated 12.01.2012 on the file of District Judge, Karaikal. For Appellants :No appearance For respondent 1 : Mr.R.Thirugnanam For Respondent 2, 4,9 12, 13, 15 : Served For Respondents 3, 5 to 8, 14 : Exparte For respondent 10 : Vacated For respondent 11 : Died ORDER When the appeal was taken up for hearing on 23.09.2025, the learned counsel for the appellants reported no instructions. Recording the same, the registry was directed to remove the names of the counsel, who entered appearance for the appellants and to list the matter by printing the names of the appellants under the caption “For dismissal”. 2/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.23 of 2013 2. Today, the appeal is listed under the caption “for dismissal” by printing the names of the appellants in the cause list. There is no representation for the appellants. Hence, the appeal suit is dismissed for default. No costs. 24.09.2025 Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No Neutral Citation Case : Yes/No nr To The learned District Judge, Karaikal. S.SOUNTHAR , J. 3/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis A.S.No.23 of 2013 nr A.S.No.23 of 2013 24.09.2025 4/4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis