The First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellants did not appear or file any representation on the date of hearing.
The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
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 : 02.03.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE S.KANNAMMAL
A.S.No.455 of 2012
1.AL.Kalaimani
2.K.Ammu
.. Appellants / Plaintiffs
Vs.
1.W.Dominic David 2.P.R.Azhagu Ramalingam
.. Respondents / Defendants
Appeal Suit filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 18.11.2011 passed by the Fast Track Court-I, Chennai, in O.S.No.7829 of 2010.
For appellants : No Appearance
JUDGMENT
Since there was no representation for the appellants on 18.02.2022, the appeal was directed to be listed under the caption for dismissal today. Though the appeal is of the year 2012, affidavit of service has not been filed till date.
Sd/Assistant Registrar(CS IX)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
gbi To
The Judge, Fast Track Court-I, Chennai.
Copy to The Section Officer, V.R. Section, High Court of Madras, Chennai.
A.S.No.455 of 2012
SRA[co] NSK 11/03/2022
Kalaimani
Ammu
Dominic David
Azhagu Ramalingam
S. Kannammal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
