This appeal was dismissed for default due to the withdrawal of counsel and lack of representation on behalf of either party, with no costs awarded.
No costs to anyone.
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: 18.12.2019
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal No.40 of 2011
M.V.Jayarama Naidu ... Appellant
vs. A.R.Santhamma ...Respondent
Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. Read with Order XXI Rule 106 C.P.C. against the judgment and decree in C.M.A.No.6 of 2007, dated 13.07.2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge at Gudiyattam, Vellore District, confirming the judgment and decree in E.A.No.197 of 2006 in E.P.No.141 of 2004 in O.S.No.14 of 1994, dated 09.10.2006 passed by the learned District Munsif Court, Gudiyattam.
Learned counsel on record for the Appellant has already withdrawn his appearance in this matter. Though the names of the Appellant and the Respondent are printed in the cause list, there is no representation on their behalf.
Sub Assistant Registrar
(jas/aeb)
To :
C.M.S.A.No.40 of 2011
BR(CO)
CSR: 29/01/2020
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M.V.Jayarama Naidu
A.R.Santhamma
S. Vaidyanathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
