The High Court of Madras dismissed an appeal suit filed under Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 96 of the CPC to set aside a decree. The court held that the appeal was dismissed as having abated since the appellant had passed away and his legal heirs did not contest the suit.
The appeal suit is dismissed as having abated.
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.
A.S.No.497 of 2011
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 23.06.2023
CORAM :
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY
A.S.No.497 of 2011
N.Duraivel .. Appellant
Versus
Prayer : Appeal Suit filed under Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the decree and judgment, dated 29.04.2010 made in O.S.No.2411 of 2007 on the file of the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track Court No.I), Chennai.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Umapathy
For Respondents : Mr.S.Surya Prakash, for RR-1, 4 to 6 : RR-3 and 7 - Dismissed
1/3
A.S.No.497 of 2011
JUDGMENT
Mr.S.Umapathy , the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that
the appellant has since passed away and his legal heirs have not come forward to contest the suit.
Suit in A.S.No.177 of 2012, filed by the other side, stood withdrawn.
23.06.2023
Index : yes/no Speaking order/Non-speaking order Neutral Citation : yes/no grs
To
2/3
A.S.No.497 of 2011
D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY, J.,
grs
A.S.No.497 of 2011
23.06.2023
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the appeal suit filed under Order XLI Rules 1 and 2 r/w Section 96 CPC should be allowed or dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Duraivel
G.Thilagavathy
D.Kesavamurthy
S.Narayanan
Saraswathy
Thiruburasundari
D.Bharatha Chakravarthy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
