Ramasamy v. Pachammal
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court at Madras dismissed S.A. No. 189 of 2003 as a non-prosecution. Both appellants and respondents were absent on listing dates, leading to the order on 03.01.2018 without any representation. The matter received only a procedural dismissal.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A. No.189 of 2003
1.Ramasamy
2.Kumaravel ...Defendants/Appellants
2 & 3 2 & 3
3 Appellants
Vs.
1.Pachammal
2.Kannammal
3.Dhanabackiammal ... Plaintiffs/Respondents/
Respondents 1 & 2
Defendant-1/Respondent-1/Respondent-3
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against
the judgment and decree in O.S.No.424 of 1989 dated 01.09.1995 on the
file of the Subordinate Judge Court, at Vellore, Vellore District as
confirmed by the judgment and decree in A.S.No.41 of 1996 dated
07.10.2002 on the file of the Principal District Court, at Vellore,
Vellore district.
For Appellants :No appearance
For Respondents :No appearance
J U D G M E N T
This matter was listed on 02.01.2018. On that date, there was no representation on both sides and the appellants being called and remaining absent, Registry was directed to list the matter today (i.e) on 03.01.2018, under the caption “for dismissal”.
2.Today also when the matter is called, there is no representation on both sides. Appellants called absent.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ramasamy
- appellant
Kumaravel
- respondent
Pachammal
- respondent
Kannammal
- respondent
Dhanabackiammal
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court