Venugopal v. Pakkirisamy
Case brief
What is this about?
In a second civil appeal, the court dismissed the matter as abated after the counsel reported that the sole appellant had died and provided no instructions.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 25.08.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.GOVINDARAJ
S.A.NO.833 OF 2012 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2012
Venugopal ... Appellant
Vs.
Pakkirisamy ... Respondent
PRAYER:The Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 24.04.2012 passed in A.S.No.29 of 2011 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Chengalpattu, confirming the judgment and decree dated 30.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.8 of 2004 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Chengalpattu.
For Appellant : M/s.K.Govi Ganesan For Respondent : M/s.V.Raghavachari
Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, it is reported by the learned counsel for the appellant that the sole appellant died and no instruction from the side of the appellant. Hence, the Second Appeal may be dismissed as abated.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Venugopal
- respondent
Pakkirisamy
Coram
M.GOVINDARAJ
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court