Indirani v. Jayaprakash
Case brief
What is this about?
The Single Judge closed this Second Appeal as there is no substantive matter remaining for hearing. A comprehensive order in a connected Contested Matter Appeal had already set aside the remand order in the First Appeal, rendering this appeal closed. The connected First Appeal was remanded for fresh hearing.
What did the court decide?
The Second Appeal and connected Miscellaneous Petition were closed, and parties were directed to continue before the lower appellate court.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
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 : 29.11.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN
S.A.No.784 of 2013 and M.P.No.1 of 2013
1.Indirani
- 2.Kannan
3.Sasikala
- 4.Navaneetha
5.Chitra ... Appellants
.. Vs ..
Jayaprakash ....Respondent
Prayer :- Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the C.P.C, against the Judgment and Decree of the A.S.No.24 of 2012 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Tiruvallur, dated 16.04.2013, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.172 of 2008, dated 28.07.2011 on the file of the Sub-Court, Tiruvallur.
Issues for consideration
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal is maintainable given the comprehensive order passed in C.M.A.No.2356 of 2013 which set aside the remand order.
What is the status of the judgment and decree in A.S.No.23 of 2012 following the allowance of C.M.A.No.2356 of 2013.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Indirani
- appellant
Kannan
- appellant
Sasikala
- appellant
Navaneetha
- appellant
Chitra
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court