The Court dismissed the second appeal as a non-prosecution matter because the counsel for the appellants appeared without instructions and failed to conduct the case.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
S.A.No.1592 of 1997
1.Kamalam 2.Arul ...Appellants/Defendants Vs. 1.Ponnusamy 2.Krishnasamy 3.Muthu Naicker ...Respondents/Plaintiff Prayer: The Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the Judgment and decree in A.S.No.61 of 1996 dated 30.04.1997 passed by the Sub-Judge, Namakkal and to restore the Judgment and decree in O.S.No.367 of 1995 dated 30.04.1996 by the Principal District Munsif, Namakkal and to allow the Second Appeal.
For Appellants : Ms.P.T.Ramadevi
For Respondents : R1 - deceased
R2 – served – No Appearance
R3 – Insufficient Address
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that she has not received any instructions from the appellants and without any instructions she is not in a position to conduct the case before this Court.
2.Accordingly, the second appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.
-s/dAssistant Registrar(CS-II) True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
kas
To.
Copy to
The Section officer VR Section, High Court, Madras.
S.A.No.1592 of 1997
SAI(CO)
SP(28/03/2018)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal can be allowed when the counsel appears without instructions.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Kamalam
Arul
Ponnusamy
Krishnasamy
Muthu Naicker
M. Dhandapani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
