Second Appeal listed for dismissal. Counsel reported inability to contact the appellant despite best efforts and registered correspondence. Court inferred lack of interest and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
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 : 23.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
S.A. No.1294 of 2001
Ramalingam ... Appellant Vs Veerasamy ... Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 C.P.C. against the Judgment and Decree dated 26.02.2001 made in A.S.No.203 of 1999 on the file of the Additional District Court, Villupuram District, Villupuram, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 29.10.1999 made in O.S.No.80/97 on the file of the Second Additional District Munsif, Ulundhurpettai.
JUDGMENT
The matter is listed under the caption “for dismissal” today. Learned counsel for the Appellant would submit that despite his best efforts to contact his client, he is unable to do so. He would also submit that he has also sent a registered letter to the Appellant and despite the same, the Appellant has not contacted him. The second appeal is of the year 2001. It can now be inferred that the Appellant is not interested in prosecuting this second appeal. Accordingly, this second appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.
Assistant Registrar (CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
nl
To
S.A. No.1294 of 2001
CP(CO)
GN(10/08/2021)
Ramalingam
Veerasamy
Abdul Qudhos
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
