S.R.Ramasamy v. P.Mani
Case brief
What is this about?
A second appeal was dismissed as not pressed because the appellants' counsel informed the court that the other respondents instructed them not to proceed with the appeal.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed as not pressed; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 16.06.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.1658 of 2008 & M.P.No.1 of 2008
1.S.R.Ramasamy
2.R.Sukumar
3.Senthil @ Senthilkumar ... Appellants/Defendants
Vs
P.Mani ... Respondent/Plaintiff
Prayer: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgement and Decree passed by the learned Subordinate Judge of Namakkal on 10.09.2008 in A.S.No.49 of 2005 reversing the decree and Judgement passed by the learned Principal District Munsif at Namakkal on 13.01.2005 in O.S.No.495 of 2003.
Mr.R.Rajesh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants would submit that his parties, namely, 2nd and 3rd respondents who were contacted by him to get details of the legal heirs of the deceased 1st appellant has instructed him that they have no intention of proceeding with the Second Appeal and therefore the Second Appeal may be dismissed as not pressed. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed as not pressed. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is also closed. No costs.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
1.S.R.Ramasamy
- appellant
2.R.Sukumar
- appellant
3.Senthil @ Senthilkumar
- respondent
P.Mani
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court