A second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the appellant and lack of representation on the date of hearing.
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.
S.A.(MD)No.345 of 2012
THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 27.04.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.R.SWAMINATHAN S.A.(MD)No.345 of 2012
Valliammal ... Appellant/Appellant/Defendant
-Vs-
Sheik Peer Mohamed
...Respondent/Respondent/Plaintiff
PRAYER: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the Judgment and Decree passed by the Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli, dated 08.02.2011 made in A.S.No.31 of 2010 confirming the Judgment and decree order made in O.S.No.24 of 2008, dated 14.12.2009 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram.
For Appellants : No appearance
For Respondents : Mr.H.Arumugam
JUDGMENT
None appears for the appellant. The matter is posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. Today also, there is no representation. The second appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar (W)
// True Copy //
/ /2021
Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
rmi To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tirunelveli. 2.The Subordinate Judge, Ambasamudram . 3.The Record Keeper, V.R.Section,
Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai. 2Copies
+1 CC to M/s.H.ARUMUGAM, Advocate ( SR-17884[F] dated 28/04/2021 )
Judgment made in S.A.(MD)No.345 of 2012
27.04.2021
CN(18.05.2021) 1P 6C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/2
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Valliammal
Sheik Peer Mohamed
G.R.Swaminathan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
