The Madras High Court filled a single-paragraph order dismissing a second appeal on the ground of abatement as the sole appellant failed to bring legal representatives on record within the extant time.
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
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.01.2017
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY
S.A.(MD)No.418 of 2011
Kasiammal
.. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
A.Mallika .. Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code r/w section 103 of CPC,against the decree and judgment dated 08.10.2010 rendered in A.S.No.14 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Subordinate Judge, Madurai, confirming the Decree and the Judgment dated 21.11.2009 rendered in O.S.No.629 of 2009 on the file of the Principal District Munsif of Madurai Town.
For Appellant : Mr.N.Subramanian for Mr.S.Subbiah For Respondent : Mr.V.Ramamoorthy * * * * *
JUDGMENT
Though the learned Counsel for the appellant is seeking time from 29.03.2016 for taking steps to bring on record the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant, so far no steps have been taken by the appellant. In these circumstances, the Second Appeal is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs.
Sd/
Assistant Registrar(CS-II)
/True Copy/
Sub Assistant Registrar.
To
S.A.(MD)No.418 of 2011
04.01.2017
ssl
AM/EM JMP/20.01.2017/1P/3C
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kasiammal
A. Mallika
M. Duraiswamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
