N.Nataraj v. C.G.Ramamurthy
Case brief
What is this about?
The Second Appeal filed by N.Nataraj was dismissed for non-prosecution. The appellant failed to engage new counsel or appear despite receiving notice after reporting 'no instructions' in 2010.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed; no costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 19.07.2021
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ABDUL QUDDHOSE
N.Nataraj ... Appellant
Versus
1.C.G.Ramamurthy 2.C.G.Krishnaprakash ... Respondents
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure code, against the decree and judgment passed in A.S. No.22/99 on the file of the Sub-Judge, Udumalpet dated 10.11.2000 as confirmed in O.S. No.375/91 on the file of the District Munsif, Udumalpet, dated 08.12.1998.
JUDGMENT
(Heard video conference)
This Court by its order dated 20.09.2010 recorded the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant that he is reporting “no instructions” in this matter and thereafter directed the Registry to issue notice to the appellant and post the matter after service of notice. Notice to the appellant has been duly served. However till date, no alternative arrangement has been made by the appellant to engage a new counsel or to appear by himself. It can now be inferred that the appellant is not interested to prosecute the Second Appeal. Accordingly, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
N.Nataraj
- respondent
C.G.Ramamurthy
- respondent
C.G.Krishnaprakash
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court