In this second appeal filed under Section 100 of the CPC, the appellate bench listed the matter for dismissal. The court observed there was non-appearance by the appellant and consequently dismissed the appeal for default without costs.
Dismissal of Second Appeal for default with no costs.
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.
S.A.No.1189 of 2006
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dated : 10.02.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE Ms. JUSTICE P.T. ASHA
S.A.No.1189 of 2006
1.Gopal Udayar ...Appellants
Vs.
1.Veerasamy
2.Elumalai ...Respondents
Prayer: Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 28.10.2005 made in A.S.No.98 of 2003 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai, reversing the Judgement and Decree dated 10.04.2003 made in O.S.No.129 of 1989 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
For Respondents : No Appearance.
1/3
S.A.No.1189 of 2006
JUDGMENT
Today, the matter has been listed under the caption “ For Dismissal” . However, there is no representation for the appellant. Therefore, the above Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.
10.02.2023
Index : Yes/No Internet : Yes/No kan To
1.The Principal District Judge, Tiruvannamalai.
2.The District Munsif, Tiruvannamalai.
P.T. ASHA, J,
2/3
S.A.No.1189 of 2006
kan
S.A.No.1189 of 2006
10.02.2023
3/3
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal under Section 100 CPC should be disposed of in the absence of appellant's representation?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Gopal Udayar
Veerasamy
Elumalai
P.T. ASHA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
