Vadivel v. K.Alangulam Panchayat
Case brief
What is this about?
Appeals filed under Order 43 Rule 1(U) CPC were dismissed for default due to non-appearance of the appellants on the hearing date.
What did the court decide?
Appeals dismissed for default with no order as to costs and connected miscellaneous petitions closed.
What the court decided
C.M.A.(MD).Nos.2041 and 2042 of 2013
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 28.04.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.VIJAYAKUMAR
C.M.A(MD)Nos.2041 and 2042 of 2013 and
M.P(MD) Nos.1 and 1 of 2013
C.M.A(MD) No.2041 of 2013:
Vadivel .....Appellant/1st Respondent/1st Defendant
-vs-
- K.Alangulam Panchayat Through its President, Kuruvikulam Union, Sankarankovil Taluk, Tirunelveli District. .... 1st Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
- The Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department, Murugankuruchi, Palayamkottai,
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Vadivel
- respondent
K. Alangulam Panchayat Through its President
- respondent
Assistant Commissioner, Land Reforms Department
- appellant
V. Samuthiram
- respondent
K. Alangulam Panchayat Through its President Kannan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
All orders in this case
2 orders share this CNR
- Order 1 — this page · R.vijayakumar
- Order 2 · K.murali Shankar
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court