The High Court dismissed an appeal suit under Section 96 CPC filed by Pachaiyappa's Trust against P. Srikanth, holding that the suit could not proceed as the respondent had vacated the premises and had not been served notice.
Appeal suit dismissed due to lack of service on the respondent who had vacated the premises.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
A.S.No.370 of 2010
Pachaiyappa's Trust G.N.Estate Managed by the Pachaiyappa's Trust, By its Committee for Management holding by its Secretary Holding office at No.21, Harrington Road, Chetpet, Chennai-600 021.
... Appellant/Plaintiff
P.Srikanth ... Respondent/Defendant
PRAYER:
Appeal Suit is filed under Section 96 of C.P.C against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.220 of 2005 on the file of the Additional District Judge, FTC-II, Kancheepuram, dated 14.12.2006.
The respondent herein against whom the money claim is made has not been served that he has already vacated the premises. Steps have not been taken to serve notice on the respondent. Hence the Appeal Suit is dismissed. No costs.
Sub Assistant Registrar
rpl
To
High Court, Madras 600 104.
A.S.No.370 of 2010
NRC(CO) CT 24/02/2021
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to dismiss an appeal suit where the respondent has not been served due to having vacated the premises.
Pachaiyappa's Trust G.N.Estate Managed by the Pachaiyappa's Trust
P. Srikanth
G. Jayachandran
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
