Raju Mandiri v. P/K/Kannan
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal, the appellants failed to appear despite multiple notices for dismissal. The High Court held that their non-participation indicated a lack of interest and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal stands dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED 15-11-2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Second Appeal No.1007 of 2006
1.Raju Mandiri
2.Ramaiya Mandiri .. Appellants/First Plaintiff
..Vs..
P.K.Kannan .. Respondent/Appellant
Second Appeal is preferred under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the partly allowed judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.22 of 1999 on the file of the Sub Court, Tirupattur, Vellore District dated 24.6.2002, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.86 of 1996 dated 30.6.1998 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Ambur, Vellore District.
For Appellants : No Appearance
For Respondent : Mr.T.R.Raja Raman
J U D G M E N T
The Second Appeal was listed for hearing on 12.11.2018. None appeared for the appellants. Thus, the case was directed to be listed on 13.11.2018 under the caption “For Dismissal”. 2. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 13.11.2018, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. In order to give one more opportunity to the appellants, once again the case was directed to be listed on 14.11.2018 under the caption “For Dismissal”. When the matter is taken up for hearing on 15.11.2018, there is no representation on behalf of the appellants. Thus, it is to be construed that the appellants are not interested in pursuing the matter.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Raju Mandiri and Ramaiya Mandiri
- appellant
P.K.Kannan
Coram
S.M.Subramaniam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court