Pappathi v. Kandasamy
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court dismissed an appeal filed under CPC as abated. The sole appellant had died without serving notice to all impleaded respondents, and no steps were taken despite the listing for dismissal.
What did the court decide?
The appeal is dismissed as abated. No costs. Connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 21.02.2022 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN A.S.NO.65 OF 2010 AND M.P.NOS.1 OF 2010 AND 1 TO 3 OF 2011 Pappathi ....Appellant vs 1.Kandasamy 2.Ponnaaya 3.Balakrishnan 4.Vasantha 5.Mahalingam 6.Mani 7.Kandasamy 8.Azhagu 9.Subramani ...Respondents
PRAYER:
Appeal filed under Section 96 of CPC against the judgment and decree dated 25.11.2009 in O.S.No.83 of 2008 on the file of the Additional District Court, (Fast Track Court No.1), Salem.
It is reported that the sole appellant died. The appellant had not served notice to some of the impleaded respondents, who were brought on record in view of the demise of the first respondent. In view of the default, the matter was listed on
17.02.2022. Since there was no representation on that day, it is listed today for dismissal. Today, learned counsel for the appellant seeks time to take steps, however, in view of the fact that the sole appellant died and steps had not been taken so far, the appeal is dismissed as abated. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS IV)
//True Copy//
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal should be dismissed as it has abated due to the death of the sole appellant without notice to all respondents.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Pappathi
- respondent
Kandasamy
- respondent
Ponnaaya
- respondent
Balakrishnan
- respondent
Vasantha
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court