The appellant filed an appeal under Section 5 OF CPC to condone a delay in filing second appeals. The learned counsel submitted that the sole appellant had died long back and her legal representatives were not interested. The court dismissed the appeals as abated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 11.02.2019
Coram
The Honourable Mr. Justice V. BHARATHIDASAN
C.M.P.Nos.623 & 624 of 2011 in S.A.Sr.97577 & 97580 of 2000
Vellaiammal
... Petitioner/ Appellant in both C.M.Ps.
Vs.
1.R.Veera Kandasamy
3.Lakshmi ...Respondents /respondents in SA.Sr.97580 of 2000
This appeal is filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 100 of Civil Procedure Code, to condone the delay of 291 days in filing the above second appeals.
2
V.BHARATHIDASAN.J.,
mrp
For Appellant : R. Tholgappian
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that pending appeal, the sole appellant died long back and her legal representatives are not interested in bringing themselves on record.
11.02.2019
mrp
To
1.The First Additional District-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Erode, 2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Erode.
C.M.P.Nos.623 & 624 of 2011 in S.A.Sr.97577 & 97580 of 2000
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeals abated due to the death of the sole appellant.
Whether the connected appeals be closed consequentially.
Vellaiammal
1.R.Veera Kandasamy
2. Lakshmi
3. Ponnuswamy
4. Kannan
5. Panneer
V. BHARATHIDASAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
