In this second appeal under Section 100 CPC, the court addressed the appellant's submission that the sole appellant had died and legal heirs could not be contacted. Consequently, the appeal was held to abate.
Second appeal dismissed on account of abatement for non-prosecution.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.02.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G. JAYACHANDRAN
S.A.No.60 of 1999
Murugesa Pillai ...Appellant
Vs.
...Respondents
Prayer:- This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgement and decree dated 18.09.1998 in A.S.No.44 of 1995 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge-cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Cuddalore reversing the judgment and decree dated 31.01.1995 in O.S.No.171 of 1984 on the file of the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Mr.T.S.Baskaran For Respondents : Mr.C.Rajan for R1 Mr.R.Sunil Kumar for R2 to R5
2
G. JAYACHANDRAN, J.
rts
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the sole appellant died and the legal heirs of the deceased sole appellant could not be contacted.
In the result, the second appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
06.02.2017
Index :Yes/No rts
To
S.A.No.60 of 1999
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal abates due to non-prosecution or death of the sole appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Murugesa Pillai
Venugopal Pillai
Midhunaselvi
Saraswathi
Asokan
Ramadas
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
