Yasodha v. Andalammal
Case brief
What is this about?
The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant did not appear on the date of hearing, resulting in the closing of the connected miscellaneous petition.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.07.2017
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.BASKARAN
S.A.No.121 of 2012
& M.P.No.1 of 2012
Yasodha ... Appellant/Plaintiff
-vs-
1.Andalammal
2.Murugesan
3.Gopal
4.Velu ... Respondents/Defendants
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil
Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 23.08.2011
passed by the Subordinate Judge at Poonamallee in A.S.No.8 of
1994 setting aside the order passed by the Additional District
Munsif at Poonamallee dated 08.01.1992 in O.S.No.804/1983.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Defendant : Mr.G.Dillipkumar (R1 to R3)
*****
J U D G M E N T
When the matter came up for hearing on 19.04.2017, there was
no representation for the appellant. Hence, the Second Appeal is
posted today under the caption “for dismissal”. Even today there
is no representation for the appellant. Hence, the Second Appeal
is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
Sd/-
Asst.Registrar (CS VIII)
/true copy/
Sub Asst. Registrar
ggi/ pvs
To
- The Subordinate Judge, Poonamallee.
- The Additional District Munsif Poonamallee.
+1cc to Mr.G.Dhilipkumar,Advocate sr.46780
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Yasodha
- respondent
Andalammal
- respondent
Murugesan
- respondent
Gopal
- respondent
Velu
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court