Karuppayee Ammal v. Sekar
Case brief
What is this about?
Second Appeal filed against a civil decree dismissed for the default of the appellant's non-appearance. No representation was filed despite notice.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 13.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R.HEMALATHA
S.A. No.646 of 2008 and M.P.No.1 of 2008
Karuppayee Ammal (Deceased) 1.R.Arumugam ...Appellant/ 2 & 3 Defendants in Trial Court ..Vs..
1.Sekar 2.Malathy 3.Saravanan 4.Kuppuswamy 5.Venkatachalam 6.Subramani 7.Ravichandran 8.Manivannan ...Respondents/Plaintiffs 2-9 in Trial Court 9.V.Ramaswamy ...Respondent/1st defendant in Trial Court 10.R.Selvaraj
11.Suseehla ...Respondents/4th and 5th defendant in Trial Court
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the decree and judgment dated 13.08.2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2004 on the file of the learned Sub Court, Namakkal, confirming the decree and judgment dated 20.04.2004 in O.S.No.301 of 2002 on the file of the learned District Munsif Court, Namakkal.
When the second appeal came up for hearing on 08.09.2021, there was no representation for the appellant and hence was directed to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 13.09.2021. Even today, i.e., 13.09.2021 there is no representation for the appellant. The learned counsel for the Respondents is present.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Karuppayee Ammal (Deceased) 1.R.Arumugam
- respondent
Sekar
- respondent
Malathy
- respondent
Saravanan
- respondent
Kuppuswamy
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court