Geetha and Another v. Nirmala
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Madras closed the Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC as the appellants could not provide instructions and restoration was left to the parties.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal is closed; parties are at liberty to restore it.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 : 16.11.2018
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
S.A.No.314 of 2002
1.Geetha 2.Bhagyaraj .. Appellants Vs. Nirmala .. Respondent
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.09.2001 and made in A.S.No.22 of 2001 on the file of Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2000 and made in O.S.No.261 of 1999 dated 21.12.2000 on the file of Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Appellants : No appearance For Respondent : M/s.Mahamandra Rajalakshmi for M/s.Sarvabhauman Associates
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel appearing for the appellants made a submission that they are unable to secure instructions from the appellants to proceed with the Second Appeal. The notice sent to the respondent had already been served and the learned counsel is unable to secure any instructions in respect of the second appellant. Thus, no purpose would be served in the event of keeping the Second Appeal pending for an unspecified period.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Geetha
- appellant
Bhagyaraj
- respondent
Nirmala
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court