In a second appeal filed by Jayalakshmi against a judgment and decree passed by the Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam, the appellant failed to appear and furnish representation on the date of hearing. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the second appeal for default.
Second Appeal dismissed for default.
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 : 20.07.2021
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Ms.JUSTICE P.T.ASHA S.A.No.1725 of 2008
Jayalakshmi
Vs
Narasimhamoorthy ... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of code of Civil Procedure praying against the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2008 passed by the Subordinate Judge at Madurantakam in A.S.No.33 of 2006 which prepared by the Appellant herein against the decree and judgment dated 12.12.2005 in O.S.No.100 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Madurantakam.
For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr. K.Govi Ganesan
J U D G M E N T
There was no representation on the side of the appellant on 08.07.2021 and therefore, the matter was directed to be listed under the caption “for dismissal” on 20.07.2021. When the matter is taken for hearing today, once again, there is no representation on the side of the appellant. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No order as to costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
kal To
+1cc to Mr.K.Govi Ganesan, Advocate SR.No. 34772 S.A.No.1725 of 2008 A.SK(18.08.2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Jayalakshmi
Narasimhamoorthy
P.T.ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
