Natarajan v. Chinnathambi @ Chinnasamy
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal dismissed for default because appellants, aware of the listing, failed to appear in person or through duly instructed counsel.
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 : 15.07.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.331 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Vs.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree passed in A.S.No.92 of 2006, dated 21.07.2007 on the file of the I Additional Sub Judge, Erode confirming the Judgment and Decree passed in O.S.No.218 of 2002 on the file of the II Additional District Munsif Court, Erode, dated 27.07.2006.
For Appellants : Mr.A.Sundaravadanam For Respondents: Mr.Sathyasatheesh, for Mr.Zeeneth Begum for R2 R1- Died R3-Served
JUDGMENT
Mr.A.Sundaravadanam, learned counsel who had undertaken to file vakalat would submit that till date he had not received any instruction from his client.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (CCC)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vum
To
Copy To
The Section Officer, VR Section, Madras High Court, Chennai.
+1cc to Mr.V.Rajesh, Advocate, S.R.No. 33348
S.A.No.331 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
KV(CO) GN(13/08/2021)
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Natarajan
Thangavel
Chinnathambi @ Chinnasamy
Dharmalingam
Sithaiyan
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court