Manickam v. Munusamy &9 Others
Case brief
What is this about?
The second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear despite notice and the death of the original party.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.11.2016
C O R A M
THE HON'BLE Dr.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.No.1733 of 1997
Manickam ...Appellant/Plaintiff
Versus
1. Munusamy
2. Shanmugham
3. Indirani
4. Rani
5. Thirunavukkarasu
6. Manoharan
7. Moorthy
8. Sarasu
9. Arumugham
10. Madhu ...Respondents/Dependent
1 to 3 & 4 to 11
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure
Code to set aside the judgment and decree as made in
A.S.No.64 of 1995 dated 28.06.1996 on the file of the Sub
Court, Krishnagiri, confirming the judgment and decree made
in O.S.No.35 of 1985 dated 26.02.1993 on the file of the
District Munsif Court, Harur.
For Appellant ... No appearance
For Respondents ... Mr.M.Muruganandam for
M/S.Raghavachari for R5
R2 to R4 and R6 to R10
no appearance
JUDGMENT
When the matter was taken up for final hearing, there was no representation for the appellant. Perusal of the records reveals that as early as on 29.11.2012, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was represented to the Court that the appellant died and the matter was adjourned for taking steps. Till date, even after lapse of four years, it appears that no steps have been taken to bring the legal representatives of the appellant. When the matter was listed earlier on 22.11.2016 there was no representation for the appellant, hence it was adjourned today (25.11.2016). Even today, no one represented the appellant. Hence the second appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Manickam
- respondent
Munusamy
- respondent
Shanmugham
- respondent
Indirani
- respondent
Rani
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court