Mohanammal v. Rani
Case brief
What is this about?
In CMP.No.3839 of 2005 pending in SA.No.278 of 2005, the High Court observed that the petition filed in 2005 remained closed as no interim order had been passed despite notice serving issued in 2005.
What did the court decide?
The petition was closed with an observation that no interim order has been passed till date.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
( Civil Appellate Jurisdiction )
Thursday, the Nineth day of September Two Thousand Twenty One
PRESENT
THE HON`BLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
CMP.No.3839 of 2005
IN SA.No.278 of 2005
1 MOHANAMMAL,(DIED) [PETITIONERS]
2 J.DURAISWAMY NAIDU
3 J.BAKTHAVATCHALAM
4 J.RADHAKRISHNAN
5 S.DILLI
APPELLANTS 2 TO 5 BROUGH ON RECORD AS LRS OF THE DECEASED SOLE APPELLANTVIZ., MOHANAMMAL VIDE ORDER OF COURT DATED 03/03/2020 MADE IN CMP.NO.769/2010 IN SA.NO.278/2005(NSSJ)
Parties & counsel
- appellant
J. J. Duraiswamy Naidu
- appellant
J. Bakthavatchalam
- appellant
J. Radhakrishnan
- appellant
S. Dilli
- respondent
Rani
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court