Murugesan v. Santhanam
Case brief
What is this about?
Second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC for non-prosecution, as appellants failed to appear despite directed listings for dismissal.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.02.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.S.SUNDAR
S.A.NO.865 OF 2021 & C.M.P.NO.16506 OF 2021 [Physical Hearing] 1. Murugesan 2. Velu ... Appellants/Appellants/ Defendants .Vs. 1. Santhanam 2. Sekar ... Respondents/Respondents/ Plaintiffs
PRAYER:-
Second Appeal preferred under 100 of CPC to set aside the decree and judgment on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Madurantakam made in A.S.No.16 of 2015 dated 27.04.2021 dismissing the appeal, confirming the judgment and decree on the file of the learned District Munsif, Madurantakam made in O.S.No.39 of 2013 dated 21.03.2014.
For Appellants : No appearance
JUDGMENT
- (1) When the matter was listed earlier on 07.02.2022, there was no representation for the appellants. Hence, this Court directed the matter to be listed under the caption ''For Dismissal'' on 09.02.2022.
- (2) Despite the matter appeared in the list under the caption ''For Dismissal'' on 09.02.2022, the learned counsel for the appellants wanted an adjournment as he was not ready with the Second Appeal. In order to give one more
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Second Appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution when appellants failed to appear despite multiple listings.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Murugesan
- appellant
Velu
- respondent
Santhanam
- respondent
Sekar
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court