The second appeal was dismissed for default as neither the appellant nor the respondent appeared to contest the hearing.
None. The appeal dismissed for default.
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: 25.07.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
SECOND APPEAL NO.1101 OF 2001
George K.Thomas .. Appellant/Appellant/Defendant /versus/ D.Chandrasekaran .. Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff Prayer: Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the decree and judgment dated 26.03.1999 in A.S.No.88 of 1998 on the file of V Additional Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai confirming the decree and judgment in I.A.No.17424 of 1997 in O.S.No.1946 of 1991, dated 20.08.1997 on the file of City Civil Court, XV Assistant Judge at Madras. For Appellant : No appearance For Respondent : No appearance JUDGMENT
On an earlier occasion, when the case was taken up for hearing, none appeared for both sides. Hence, the Registry was directed to list the case today i.e. 25.07.2017 under the caption “for dismissal”. Accordingly, the case was listed today under the caption “For Dismissal”. Even today when the case is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellant as well as the respondent. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed.
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
S.A.No.1101 of 2001
RSK(CO) CS/23/08/17
George K.Thomas
D.Chandrasekaran
Dr.Justice G.Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
