Allowed

S.Chidambaram, v. an.Ramanathan

Madras HC28 Mar 2019CMP(MD)/747/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appellants filed a Common Petition seeking to set aside an order dismissing their Second Appeal (SA) for non-appearance to restore the appeal on the court file. The court allowed the application, directed payment of costs, and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

Set aside the order dismissing the appeal for non-appearance and restored the appeal on the court file; costs awarded to respondent's counsel.

S.Chidambaram, Vs an.Ramanathan — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

¶2

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT ( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )

¶3

Thursday, the Twenty Eighth day of March Two Thousand Nineteen

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

The Hon`ble Mr Justice K.KALYANASUNDARAM

¶6

CMP(MD) No.747 of 2019 IN SA(MD) No.509 of 2013

¶7

1 S.CHIDAMBARAM,

¶8

SON OF SOLAIYAPPAN

¶9

2 AR.PALANIYAPPAN (DIED) SON OF ARUNACHALAM 3 AR.VALLIYAMMA, 4 PL.PREMA LATHA, 5 PL.MUTHU VALLIAPPAN, 6 AL.MEENATCHI, ... PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS

¶10

¶11

1 AN.RAMANATHAN, 2 M.VADIVEL, 3 M.THANJUDEEN, ... RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS

¶12

Petition praying that in the circumstances stated therein and in the affidavit filed therewith the High Court will be pleased to set aside the order dated 24.10.2018 passed in S.A.(MD)No.509 of 2013 dismissing the above petition for non-appearance and restore the same on file of this Honourable Court and thus render justice.

¶13

Prayer in SA(MD). 509/ 2013 :

¶14

to prefer the memorandum of this second appeal to set aside the judgement and decree dated 04.02.2013 made in AS.No.95 of 2011 on the file of the Sub Court, Devakottai confirming the Judgement and decree dated 29.07.2011 made in OS.No.85/2008 on the file of the Additional District Munsif, Karaikudi

¶15

ORDER : This petition coming on for orders upon perusing the petition and the affidavit filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of MR.S.M.S.JOHNNY BASHA, Advocate for the petitioner and of Mr.M.VIVEKANANDAN,Advocate for R1 to R3, the court made the following order:-

¶16

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ This application is allowed on Payment of Cost of Rs.1000/(Rupees One thousand Only) to the counsel who is appearing for the

¶17

¶18

respondents by the petitioner within a period of one weeks.

¶19

sd/28/03/2019 / TRUE COPY /

¶20

Sub-Assistant Registrar (C.S.) Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai - 625 023. TO

¶21

1 THE SUBORDINATE JUDGE, DEVAKOTTAI. 2 THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT MUNSIF, KARAIKUDI.

¶22

PS/JC/SAR-4/02.04.2019/2P/3C

¶23

ORDER IN CMP(MD) No.747 of 2019 IN SA(MD) No.509 of 2013 Date :28/03/2019

¶24

https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

S.Chidambaram, v. an.Ramanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

S.Chidambaram, v. an.Ramanathan

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A.Perinbanayagam, Vs State of Tamil Nadu

A. Vellaswamy, Vs M. Arumugam

V.Sivakumar Vs Dr.M.Saikumar

K.Lakshmiammal, Vs P.Annapushpam

Kajamydeen, Vs Mohammed Kasim, Thro His

Abdoul Cassime Vs The Competent Authority