Poongothai v. Ramalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
Single judge held Civil Miscellaneous Appeal to be infructuous as the underlying suit was disposed of, dismissing the appeal on the filing of endorsement.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 14.07.2017
CORAM : THE HONOURABLE Mr.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
CMA.No.930 of 2013
and MP.No.1 2013
Poongothai .. Appellant/Petitioner/
Plaintiff
Vs.
1.Ramalingam
2.Karunanithi
3.Vetriselvi
4.Dayanithi
5.Bernard Dorthy Suzen
6.Jayanthi .. Respondents/Respondents/
Defendants
Prayer : Civil Miscellaneous Appeal preferred under Order 43
Rule 1(r) of CPC, against the fair and decretal order dated
17.8.2012 made in I.A.No.436 of 2012 In O.S.No.48 of 2012 before
the District Court, Karaikal.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sounthar
For Respondents : M/s.Sai Bharath &
Ilan [for R6]
Mr.G.K.Ilanthiraiyan for
No Appearance (R1 to R5)
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appeal is preferred against the interim order pending trial of the suit, but as on date, the suit itself has been disposed of and consequently, the appeal has become infructuous. The learned counsel also made necessary endorsement.
- Recording the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and the endorsement so made, this appeal is dismissed as infructuous.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar ds
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Poongothai
- respondent
Ramalingam
- respondent
Karunanithi
- respondent
Vetriselvi
- respondent
Dayanithi
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court