T.Vasudevan v. Mohan
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal, the High Court dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to appear despite prior indulgence for submissions, leading to the closure of the matter.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution with costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:13.04.2018
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN
S.A.No.2269 of 2003
T.Vasudevan ... Appellant
Vs.
Mohan
rep. by Power of Attorney Agent
Jayanthi ... Respondent
Prayer:
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against
the decree and judgment dated 22.08.2003 passed in A.S.No.5 of
2001 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore confirming
the judgment and decree dated 30-10-2000 in O.S.No.412 of 1992
on the file of the District Munsif, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : No appearance
For Respondent : Mr.R.Gururaj
J U D G M E N T
Counsel for the respondent present.
2.On a perusal of the notes paper, it is found that the learned counsel for the appellant has been regularly taking adjournments for making submissions and accordingly, though, this Court has granted sufficient indulgence, the appellant has not been serious in prosecuting the appeal and in such view of the matter, when a request for adjournment is again sought for today by the learned appellant's counsel, this Court has declined the same and directed the appellant's counsel to make submissions and paused over the matter.
3.Again when the second appeal is taken up for hearing, there is no representation for the appellant. Appellant called
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal can be allowed when the appellant does not appear and has not seriously prosecuted the appeal.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
T.Vasudevan
- respondent
Mohan
Coram
T.Ravindran
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court