Deivasigamani v. Asha Nehemiah
Case brief
What is this about?
This second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant appeared without representation at the hearing. Consequently, the connected C.M.P. was also dismissed.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
What the court decided
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras
Dated: 06.04.2006
Coram
The Honourable Mr.JUSTICE A.KULASEKARAN
Second Appeal No.1334 of 1999 & C.M.P.No.14280 of 1999
Deivasigamani .... Appellant/Respondent/ Plaintiff Vs. 1. Asha Nehemiah 2. K.R.Lamech .... Respondents/Appellants/ Defendants
APPEAL under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 05.08.1998 made in A.S.No.31 of 1998 on the file of Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, reversing the judgment and decree dated 14.12.95 made in O.S.No.392 of 1989 on the file of the Sub-Court, Poonamallee.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondents: Mr. A.Krishna Rao
When the matter was called on 8.3.2006, there was no representation for the appellant. Hence, the matter was posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 9.3.2006. Again it was posted on 9.3.2006 and at the request of both sides, the matter stood adjourned by two weeks. Thereafter it was listed on 24.3.2006. On that day also learned counsel for the appellant sought adjournment and the same was granted. On 3.3.2006, again it
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Deivasigamani
- respondent
Asha Nehemiah
- respondent
K.R.Lamech
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court