M.Ranganathan v. Gunasekaran
Case brief
What is this about?
Two second appeals were dismissed for default in the absence of the appellants, who reported no instructions. The connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
Second appeals dismissed for default; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 28.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
S.A.N os.1427 & 1428 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007
M.Ranganathan ... Appellant in S.A.No.1427 of 2007/ Plaintiff 1.M.Ranganathan 2.Padmanabhan ... Appellants in S.A.No.1428 of 2007/ Defendants ..Vs.. 1.Gunasekaran 2.Sampath @ Sampathkumar 3.Dhanammal (Exonerated) ... Respondents in S.A.No.1427 of 2007/ Defendants Gunasekaran ... Respondent in S.A.No.1428 of 2007/ Plaintiff
COMMON PRAYER : Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 31.08.2005 in A.S.Nos.19 & 20 of 2004, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Gudiyatham, upholding the decree and judgment dated 06.08.2004 in O.S.Nos.354 of 2000 & 186 of 2001, on the file of the District Munsif Court, Gudiyatham. In both S.As :
For Appellants : Ms.Vinnarasi for Mr.K.Vijayakumar
For Respondents : No appearance
COMMON JUDGMENT
When the second appeal came up for hearing on 27.09.2021, there was no representation for the appellants and hence were directed to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 28.09.2021. When the matter is taken up for hearing today, the learned counsel for the appellants reports no instructions for the appellants in both the appeals. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Parties & counsel
- appellant
M. Ranganathan
- appellant
Padmanabhan
- respondent
Gunasekaran
- respondent
Sampath @ Sampathkumar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court