Banu v. E.Rajendran
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal dismissed because counsel for appellants submitted lack of response or instruction from clients. Connected C.M.P. also dismissed. No trial, reasoning, or detailed findings.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated:14.12.2018
Coram:
The Hon'ble Dr. Justice G. Jayachandran
Second Appeal No.1539 of 2004
and
C.M.P.No.12099 of 2004
1.Banu
2.Manonmani
3.Selvi
4.E.Arumugam .. Appellants
/versus/
1.E.Rajendran
2.Navaneetham
3.Meenakshi
4.R.Krishnaveni
5.Dilli
6.E.Selvakumar .. Respondents
Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.318 of 2002
dated 22.12.2003 by the Additional District Judge, Fast Track
Court V, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree passed by
the IV Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in
O.S.No.4881/98 dated 26.11.2001.
For Appellants :Mr.S.Parthasarathy
For Respondents :Mr.Vincent for R1
R2-died
R3 to R6 – No appearance
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that despite intimation to the client, there is no response and there is no instruction from his client and he has also furnished returned postal cover of his intimation.
- Recording the same, this second appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected C.M.P.No.12099 of 2004 is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Banu
- appellant
Manonmani
- appellant
Selvi
- appellant
E.Arumugam
- respondent
E.Rajendran
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court