The second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC was dismissed for default because the respondent had not been served with notice despite the matter being pending since 2008. No discrete judgment or substantive reasoning is provided in the order.
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: 16.06.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MS.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA
S.A.No.1589 of 2008 and CMP.No.1 of 2008
Ravichandran ...Appellant
Vs
R.Rajendran ...Respondent
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 28.07.2008 in A.S.No.26 of 2007 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Cuddalore confirming the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007 in O.S.No.95 of 2002 on the file of the Principal District Munsif's Court, Cuddalore.
For Appellant : Ms.R.Meenal
For Respondent: Not ready in notice
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant represents that she has instructions from her counterpart in the lower Court that the matter has been settled. However, no written confirmation has been received in this regard. However no steps have been taken to serve the respondents all these years.
s/d-
Assistant Registrar(CS VI)
True Copy
Sub-Assistant Registrar
mrn To
C.M.P.No.1 of 2008
AD(CO) LS(19/07/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dismiss the second appeal due to non-service of notice on the respondent.
Ravichandran
R.Rajendran
P.T.Asha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
