The Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal under Section 100 CPC as having abated. The sole appellant had died, no legal representatives were brought on record, and the court accepted the counsel's inability to proceed due to lack of instructions from heirs.
The second appeal is dismissed as having abated; the connected miscellaneous petition is closed; no costs.
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: 27.10.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.No.458 of 2017 and CMP No.11460 of 2017
R.Natarajan
...Appellant/Defendant
Vs.
T.Srinivasan ...Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the Judgment and Decree, dated 18.01.2017 in A.S.No.2 of 2016 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Namakkal, against the Judgment and Decree, dated 15.09.2010 in O.S.No.187 of 2010 on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Namakkal.
For Appellant : Mr.K.Sathish kumar
The defendant in O.S.No.187 of 2010 on the file of Subordinate Court, Namakkal having suffered a decree for specific performance concurrently at the hands of the Courts below, has come up with this second appeal.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
vum
To
S.A.No.458 of 2017 and CMP No.11460 of 2017
AKII (CO) PR (23/11/2021)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second appeal filed by a sole appellant who has died can continue without formal substitution of legal representatives.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
R. Natarajan
T. Srinivasan
M. Govindaraj
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
