Veerappa Gounder v. Jagadeesan
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution as appellants were absent after repeated calls. Connected miscellaneous petition also dismissed.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal and connected miscellaneous petition dismissed for non-prosecution with costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 02.04.2019 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE T.RAVINDRAN S.A.No.428 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007
1.Veerappa Gounder
2.Apparsamy Gounder
3.Sundaramoorthy ...Appellants
Vs.
1.Jagadeesan
2.Chandran
3.Murugadas ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil
Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree dated 09.01.2006
made in A.S.No.39 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Panruti,
reversing the judgment and decree dated 20.07.2005 made in
O.S.No.191 of 1998 on the file of the District Munsif, Panruti.
For Appellants : No apperance
For Respondents : Mr.V.Chandrakanthan
JUDGMENT
This matter was listed on 01.04.2019 and on that day
there was no representation for the appellants, despite the
matter being called twice and on the appellants being
called and remaining absent, the Registry was directed to list
the matter today under the caption "for dismissal" by printing
the name of the appelant in the cause list.
- Today, when the matter is called, there is no representation for the appellants. Appellants called. Absent. Counsel for the respondents present.
- In the light of the above position, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution with costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Veerappa Gounder
- appellant
Apparsamy Gounder
- appellant
Sundaramoorthy
- respondent
Jagadeesan
- respondent
Chandran
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court