Muniammal v. K. Rajagopal
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal dismissed due to non-appearance of the appellant and respondent in the High Court of Madras. The appellant filed an affidavit of service claiming no instructions were received.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal is dismissed. No costs. Connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 15.12.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.No.168 of 2008
and MP No.1 of 2008
Muniammal ...Appellant/1st Defendant Vs. 1 K.Rajagopal 2 R.Gunasekar 3 R.Rajasekar ...Respondents/Plaintiff & Defendant 4&5
Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 29.09.2006 made in As. No.239/05 passed by V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confiring the Judgment and Decree passed by the Trial Court made in OS.No.6927/95 dated 16.09.2004 on the file of VIII Asst.Judge City Civil Court, Chennai.
For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondents : No Appearance ORDER
When the Second Appeal came up for hearing on 20.10.2016, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he has no instructions from his client. The registered post sent to the last known address of the appellant returned as refused. An affidavit of service has also been filed along with returned postal cover with acknowledgment due.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Muniammal
- respondent
1 K.Rajagopal
- respondent
2 R.Gunasekar
- respondent
3 R.Rajasekar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court