Suseela v. Lakshmi
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed for default as appellants failed to appear despite filing a withdrawal memo, while the respondent was present.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal and CMP No.12416 of 2004 dismissed for default; no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 17.12.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU
Second Appeal No.1583 of 2004
- Suseela 2. Sakthivel ... Appellants/Defendants Vs. 1. Lakshmi 2. Sumathi 3. Poongodi ... Respondents/Plaintiffs Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the judgment and decree dated 30.4.2004 made in A.S.No.11 of 2001 on the file of the Sub Court, Attur, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2001 made in O.S.No.312 of 1992 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Attur.
For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : Mr.V.Raghavachari
J U D G M E N T
Mr.T.R.Rajaraman, the learned counsel for the appellants has filed a memo withdrawing his appearance. The appellants are also not before the Court today. Though the matter was listed today under the caption "for dismissal". Even today, there is no
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Suseela
- appellant
Sakthivel
- respondent
Lakshmi
- respondent
Sumathi
- respondent
Poongodi
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court