Ambmujammal v. Rajendran
Case brief
What is this about?
A second appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code was dismissed for non-appearance by the appellants after multiple hearings were skipped. The connected miscellaneous petition was also closed.
What did the court decide?
Second appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; connected miscellaneous petition closed. No costs.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 03.03.2022
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.ANAND VENKATESH
S.A.NO.1022 OF 2015 AND M.P.NO.1 OF 2015
- Ambujammal 2. Rajasekaran 3. Kalyanakumar 4. Elisabath ... Appellants
Vs.
- Rajendran 2. Meena 3. Karthik 4. Ramesh Suseela (Deceased)
- Muniammal 6. Munikrishnan 7. Nathiya
... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C., against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2015 in A.S.No.100 of 2011 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Tiruttani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 08.09.2010 in O.S.No.32 of 2007 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tiruttani.
For Appellants : No appearance For Respondents : Ms.S.R.Sumathy for R1 to R4 R5 to R7 – Not ready in notice
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Ambujammal, Rajasekaran, Kalyanakumar, Elisabath
- respondent
Rajendran, Meena, Karthik, Ramesh Suseela, Muniammal, Munikrishnan, Nathiya
Coram
N. Anand Venkatesh
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court