Thangammal v. C.Mayilsamy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed the second appeal ex parte due to the appellant's failure to bring the legal representatives of the deceased respondent on record, despite prior impleading of an interested party.
What did the court decide?
Aprial dismissed without costs. No appointment of administrator ordered.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
SECOND APPEAL NO.321 OF 1995
1.Thangammal(died 2.Ramachandran 3.Tulasimani .. Appellants (Appellants 2 and 3 are brought on record as LR of the deceased sole appellant and transposed the record them as appellants 2 and 3 as per order of Court dated 06.11.2003 made in C.M.P.No.15989 of 2003 by PDDJ) /versus/
V.Ramasamy (died) C.Mayilsamy (Substituted in the place of sole respondent vide order of Court dated 24.06.2014 made in C.M.P.No. 338 of 2011 in S.A.No.321/95) ..Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1993 made in A.s.No.95 of 1991 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 08.01.1991 made in O.S.No.1828 of 1989 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellant :Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For Respondents:M/s.Srinath Sridevan
J U D G M E N T
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether Order XXII Rule 4(A) of CPC regarding appointment of administrator applies given an interested party is already impleaded.
Whether the appeal should be kept pending given the death of the contesting respondent prior to the remand by the Supreme Court.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Thangammal L.R., Ramachandran, Tulasimani
- respondent
V.Ramasamy
- respondent
C.Mayilsamy
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court