Dismissed

Arthanari[Died] v. Periyannan@Periyasamy[Died]

Madras HC4 Nov 2019SA/214/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a second appeal in a civil proceeding under Section 100 of C.P.C. as abated. The dismissal resulted from the death of a respondent and the appellants' failure to contact their counsel to take necessary steps despite receiving legal notice.

What did the court decide?

The second Appeal No.214 of 2014 is dismissed as having abated; connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Arthanari[Died] Vs Periyannan@Periyasamy[Died] — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2019)

¶1

S.A.No.214 of 2014

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 04.11.2019

¶4

CORAM:

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.SUBRAMANIAN

¶6

S.A.No.214 of 2014
and M.P.No.2 of 2014
Arthanari (died)
1. Chinnannan
2. Ashokkumar
3. Periyasamy
4. Rajendran
5. palaniammal
6. Chinnapillai
7. Pappathi ..Appellants
Vs.
Periyannan @ Periyasamy (died)
1. Palanisamy
2. Vadivel
3. Ramalingam
4. Murugesan
5. Oomaniyan @ Kandasamy
6. Sellammal
7. Sengodan
8. Arumugham
9. Valli @ Valliammal ..Respondents

¶7

Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari, dated 17.12.2013 in A.S.Nos.26 of 2012, confirming the judgment and decree of the learned District Munsif, Sankari, dated 06.07.2012 in O.S.Nos.68 of 2003.

¶8

1/4

¶9

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶10

S.A.No.214 of 2014

¶11

For Appellants : A.Gokulakrishnan

¶12

For Respondents : Mr.S.Viswananthan

¶13

J U D G M E N T

¶14

The learned counsel for the 3^rd respondent had filed a memo dated 19.09.2019, stating the 1^st respondent namely Palanisamy had died on 22.09.2017. The counsel for the appellants took time to take steps. 2. The learned counsel for the appellants expresses his inability to take steps, since the appellants had not contacted him despite having received his registered letter dated 24.09.2019 as early as on 03.10.2019. Hence, the second appeal is dismissed as having abated. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs. 04.11.2019 vum Index : No Non-Speaking order

¶15

¶16

2/4

¶17

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶18

S.A.No.214 of 2014

¶19

The Subordinate Court, Sankari,

¶20

The District Munsif, Sankari.

¶21

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.

¶22

R.SUBRAMANIAN, J.

¶23

3/4

¶24

http://www.judis.nic.in

¶25

S.A.No.214 of 2014

¶26

vum

¶27

S.A.No.214 of 2014
and M.P.No.2 of 2014

¶28

04.11.2019

¶29

4/4

¶30

http://www.judis.nic.in

Arthanari[Died] v. Periyannan@Periyasamy[Died]

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arthanari[Died] v. Periyannan@Periyasamy[Died]

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

Mrs.M.Rajathi Vs Mr.K.Sadasivam

Mr.G.Maruthamuthu Vs Mr.K.Sadasivam

Kuppusamy Vs Muthusamy

P Kannappa Reddy Vs Govinda Reddy

Royappa Gounder (Died) Vs Murugasamy

M. Sivaprakasam Vs Chinnathambi