The Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C. for non-prosecution as the appellant's counsel sought an adjournment without valid representation, and the request was rejected by the court.
The second appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed. No costs awarded.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.10.2019
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN
S.A.No.198 of 2014
and M.P.No.1 of 2014
K.Kasi alias Kasiammal
..Appellant/Plaintiff
Vs.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Ariyalur, dated 19.09.2011 in A.S.No.63 of 2004, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Ariyalur, dated 31.03.2004 in O.S.No.146 of 1995.
For Appellant : Mrs.S.Sujatha
For Respondents
: Mr.A.Vimal Kumar
JUDGMENT
Since there was no representation for the appellant yesterday, the appeal has been posted for dismissal today.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar //True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
To
Copy To: The Section Officer, V.R.Section,
High Court of Madras, Chennai -104.
+1 cc to M/s.P.Dinesh Kumar, Advocate Sr.No. 87250 +1 cc to M/s.S.Sujatha, Advocate Sr.No. 86915 AKM/14.11.19/1P-6C / S.A.No.198 of 2014 and M.P.No.1 of 2014
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code should be dismissed for non-prosecution of the appellant.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
K. Kasi alias Kasiammal
Sivabagyam
Periyasamy
Veerasamy
Lalitha
R. Subramanian
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
