Rahamathullah v. Mainuthin
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court at Madras dismissed a second appeal for default because the first appellant had died without legal heirs being impleaded and no instructions were received for the appellants.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.09.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA
1.Rahamathullah
2.Kafar Sahib ...Appellants / Respondents /
Defendants
Mainuthin
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C.,
against the decree and judgment dated 09.10.2006 passed in A.S.
No.39 of 1999 on the file of Principal Subordinate Judge,
Thiruvannamalai, setting aside the decree and judgement dated
26.02.1999 in O.S.No. 245 of 1996 on the file of the District
Munsif cum Judicial Magistrate. Chengam.
JUDGMENT
It is seen from the records that the first appellant died
long back and no steps were taken to implead the legal heirs of
the deceased first appellant till date. The learned counsel for
the appellants also reported no instructions for the appellants
on 11.08.2021. Though the name of the second appellant is
printed in the cause list today after issuing notice to the
second appellant, there is no representation on behalf of the
second appellant.
2. In view of the same, the Second Appeal is dismissed
for default. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous
petition is closed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Rahamathullah
- appellant
Mainuthin
Coram
Mrs. Justice R. HEMALATHA
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court