P.M.Sekar, v. Kumudha,D/O.Pandi
Case brief
What is this about?
Justice T.Ravindran dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 of the CPC for non-prosecution as the appellant was absent without instructions. The matter was listed for dismissal.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:22.06.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No. 2204 of 2004
P.M.Sekar ... Appellant Vs. Kumudha ...Respondent Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment of the District Judges Court, Nagapattinam poassed in A.S.No.53 of 2003 dated 14.10.2003 reversing the decree and judgment of District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam passed in O.S.No.503 of 2000 dated 25.03.2003.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : No appearance
J U D G M E N T
In this matter, already, counsel for the appellant filed a memo reporting no instructions and accordingly, appellant called and remaining absent, Registry was directed to list the matter today, i.e, on 22.06.2018, under the caption “ for dismissal”. 2.Today, when the matter is called , there is no representation for the appellant. Appellant called absent.
3.Resultantly, the second appeal is dismissed for nonprosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition, if any, is closed.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS-V) //True Copy//
Parties & counsel
- appellant
P.M. Sekar
- respondent
Kumudha
Coram
T. Ravindran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court