Amirdhammal v. Jayaraman
Case brief
What is this about?
The court dismissed the second appeal as abated due to the death of one appellant without adequate steps to bring legal representatives on record, and also dismissed it against the surviving appellant.
What did the court decide?
Liberty granted to file applications to condone delay, set aside abatement, and implead legal representatives.
What the court decided
S.A.No.1296 of 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 20..04..2023
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN
Second Appeal No.1296 of 2009
- Amirdhammal
- Suseela
..... Appellants
-Versus-
- Jayaraman
- Poongavanam
..... Respondents
Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated against the judgement and decree dated 19.06.2009 made in A.S.NO.64 of 2007 by the learned Principal Subordinate Judge, Thiruvannamalai, reversing the judgement and decree dated 13.07.2007 made in O.S.No.185 of 2006 by the learned Principal District Munsif, Chengam, Thiruvannamalai District.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Amirdhammal
- appellant
Suseela
- respondent
Jayaraman
- respondent
Poongavanam
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court