This is a second appeal under Section 100 CPC against a judgment confirming a lower court decree. The High Court dismissed the appeal as not maintainable based on the provisions cited, without providing detailed reasoning.
Second Appeal dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.
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.36 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 23.02.2021
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2005
1.Basheer Ahamathu
2.M.P.Abdul Kader Jailani
3.Mathar Fathima
4.K.Peer Fathimal
... Appellants
Vs.
1.Natarajan
2.Premavathi @ Prema
3.Minor Muthusamy 4.M.R.Anburaja
...Respondents
PRAYER :This Second Appeal has been filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.61 of 2000, dated 27.04.2001 on the file of the I Additional District Court-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 1996, dated 13.12.1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
For appellants : Mr.A.Sankara Subramanian For R1 : Mr.M.V.Venkataseshan For R2 to R4 : No Appearance
J U D G M E N T
This Second Appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree passed in A.S.No.61 of 2000, dated 27.04.2001 on the file of the I Additional District Court-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.97 of 1996, dated 13.12.1999 on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
2.The learned counsel for the appellants filed a memo, dated 29.01.2021.
3.Perused the memo and the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2003) 9 SCC 606 (Banarsi and Others Vs.Ram Phal) submitted by the learned counsel for the appellants.
4.In view of the Order 41 Rule 22 r/w Section 100 of Civil https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
1/2
S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2005
Procedure Code, this Second Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The memo, dated 29.01.2021 is recorded. No costs.
Assistant Registrar (CS-III)
// True Copy //
/ /2021 Sub Assistant Registrar(CS)
VSD
Note : In view of the present lock down owing to COVID-19 pandemic, a web copy of the order may be utilized for official purposes, but, ensuring that the copy of the order that is presented is the correct copy, shall be the responsibility of the advocate/litigant concerned.
To
1.The I Additional District Court-Cum-Chief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli.
2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Tirunelveli.
3.The Section Officer, V.R Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.(2-copies)
Order made in S.A.(MD)No.36 of 2005 23.02.2021
VR(CO) SRS (16/03/2021) 2P : 5C
2/2
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is maintainable.
Whether the second appeal is maintainable in view of Order 41 Rule 22 and Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Banarsi and Others Vs. Ram PhalReferred¶22
(2003) 9 SCC 606 (Banarsi and Others Vs.Ram Phal) · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Basheer Ahamathu
M.P.Abdul Kader Jailani
Mathar Fathima
K.Peer Fathimal
Natarajan
Premavathi @ Prema
S.Kannammal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
