Kanniappan, v. Chinnaraji
Case brief
What is this about?
Since the appellant appeared without instructions and was non-prosecuting, the second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC was dismissed. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED : 10.02.2022 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE R. HEMALATHA S.A.No. 668 of 2011 and M.P.No.1 of 2011
Kanniappan ...Appellant Vs. 1.Chinnaraji 2.Seetharaman
3.Vanitha
4.Kanniammal
5.Kullammal ...Respondents
Prayer : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, 1908 against the decree and judgment dated 29.01.2011 passed in A.S. No.21 of 2010, on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Tiruvannamalai, confirming the decree and judgment dated 01.03.2010 passed in O.S. No.291 of 2008, on the file of the Principal District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Respondents : No appearance
JUDGMENT
When the second appeal came up for hearing on 09.02.2022, there was no representation for the appellant and hence was directed to be posted under the caption 'for dismissal' on 10.02.2022. Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing the learned counsel for the appellant reports no instructions for the appellant.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Kanniappan
- respondent
Chinnaraji
- respondent
Seetharaman
- respondent
Vanitha
- respondent
Kanniammal
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court