In S.A.No.1312 of 1999, the High Court of Madras dismissed an appeal for default on the date of hearing (10.02.2017) as the appellant failed to appear despite an order from 10.02.2017 listing the matter for dismissal.
The second appeal was 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 : 17.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.No.1312 of 1999
Pathullabi ... Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
1.Ajeema Bi Ammal
2.Syed Moosa
3.S.K.Syed Sahib
4.Fiksanisa
5.Bathrunisa
6.Rowthunissa
7.Saravathunnissa ... Respondents/LRs of the
1 st Plaintiff
Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code against the Judgment and decree of the learned
Subordinate Judge, Tindivanam in A.S.No.35 of 1986 dated
06.08.1998 confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.462
of 1983, on the file of the learned District Munsiff, Gingee,
dated 28.03.1985.
For Appellant : No Appearance
For Respondents : R1 to 4 and 7
Dismissed dated 07.12.2009
R5 & 6 – No appearance
JUDGMENT
When the second appeal came up for hearing on 10.02.2017, none appeared on either sides. Hence, the Registry was directed to list the matter to be posted today, under the caption “For dismissal”.
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
rts
To
1. The Subordinate Judge,
Tindivanam.
2. The District Munsif,
Gingee.
3. The Section Officer
V.R.Section,
High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.1312 of 1999
NM(CO)
CA(01/03/2017)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Pathullabi
Ajeema Bi Ammal
Syed Moosa
S.K.Syed Sahib
Fiksanisa
Bathrunisa
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
