The court dismissed two Second Appeals filed by a tenant under Section 100 of CPC, for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear despite prior notices, and the connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
Second Appeals dismissed for non-prosecution; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 09.11.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.Nos. 1634 and 1635 of 1992 and CMP No.16450 of 1992 in SA No.1634 of 1992
G.Shanmugham ...Appellant in both the Appeals Vs. 1 Arulmighu Natesan Bajanai Koil, Rep by its Trustee, Sankara Mudaliar. 2 Chinni Ramasamy Chetty Charities, fit person, Arulmighu Natesar Bajanai Koil, 26, Kanniga Parameswari Koil Street, Vellore. ...Respondents in both the Appeals
Prayer in SA 1634/92:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.1992 and made in AS No.244 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Court, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1990 made in OS. No.767 of 1978 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.
Prayer in SA 1635/92:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 01.10.1992 and made in AS No.245 of 1990 on the file of Additional District Court, Vellore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 26.10.1990 made in OS. No.530 of 1981 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Vellore.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents: No Appearance
COMMON ORDER
These two Appeals have been preferred by the tenant under the first respondent, who is the plaintiff in the suits for
eviction and recovery of rent. Having lost the case before both the Courts below and suffering the order of eviction, and recovery of rental arrears the tenant has preferred these Appeals in the year 1992. These Appeals have been posted earlier on several occasions including under the caption for dismissal, there was no representation for the appellant either through counsel or in person, therefore in the previous hearing this Court directed the Registry to print the name of appellant and post the case for hearing. Even today, when the cases were listed showing the name of the appellant, there is no representation.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeals stand dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of the appellant?
What is the final order regarding the connected Miscellaneous Petition?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
G. Shanmugham
Arulmighu Natesan Bajanai Koil, Rep by its Trustee, Sankara Mudaliar
Chinni Ramasamy Chetty Charities
Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
