Munirathnam v. Nataraj
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal dismissed as appellants filed it without instructions from parties. Counsel sought adjournment but court proceeded to dismiss the appeal on the ground of lack of instructions.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 05.02.2018
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
S.A.No.1823 of 1999
Munirathnam ...Appellant/Appellant/
1 st Defendant
Vs.
1.Nataraj
2.K.Anandakumar ...1 st & 2 nd Respondents/1 st & 2 nd
Respondents/Plaintiffs
3.Sakthivel
4.The Tahsildar
Coimbatore South
5.Coimbatore City Municipal Corporation
Rep. by its Commissioner
Coimbatore
6.Thangappan ...3to 6 th Respondents/
3 to 6 th Respondents/4 to 7
Defendants
Prayer: The second appeal has been filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 08.07.1999 in A.S.No.106 of 1996 on the file of the Principal District Judge's Court, Coimbatore, confirming the judgment and decree dated 23.04.1996 in O.S.No.2752 of 1990 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Coimbatore.
For Appellants : Mr.C.R.Prasanna
The learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as respondents 1 & 2 would submit that they have not received any instructions from the parties and without any instructions they are not in a position to conduct the case before this Court. They have also made an endorsement to that effect.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Munirathnam
- respondent
1. Nataraj
- respondent
2. K.Anandakumar
- respondent
3. Sakthivel
- respondent
4. The Tahsildar, Coimbatore South
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court