Dismissed

C.Saraswathi, v. P.Subramaniam

Madras HC20 Dec 2023SA/305/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed a second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC for default due to the appellant's death and the subsequent inability to serve the death memo because of an insufficient address. The case cannot be kept on file.

What did the court decide?

Second appeal dismissed for default; Registry directed to retain trial court records and cross objection until disposal.

C.Saraswathi, Vs P.Subramaniam — Execution and Attachment | Madras HC (2023)

¶1

S.A.No.305 of 2007

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED : 20.12.2023

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN

¶6

S.A.No.305 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007

¶7

C.Saraswathi ... appellant -Vs1.P.Subramaniam 2.T.A.Jose ... Respondents

¶8

Prayer:- Second Appeals filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 19.04.2005 in A.S.No.182 of 2004, passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Coimbatore, modifying the judgment and decree dated 12.01.2004 in O.S.No.573 of 1996, passed by the learned I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore. For appellant : Insufficient address

¶9

For respondent 1 : Dismissed vide order dated 03.04.2018

¶10

For respondent 2 : Mr.C.R.Prasanan

¶11

¶12

J U D G M E N T

¶13

After the death of the learned counsel for the appellant, Registry

¶14

issued the death memo to the appellant to the address mentioned in the

¶15

Page 1 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶16

S.A.No.305 of 2007

¶17

appeal memorandum. But, such memo was returned with an endorsement “Insufficient address”. Hence, there is no purpose in keeping this second appeal on file.

¶18

In the result, this second appeal is dismissed for default .

¶19

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶20

Further, the learned counsel for the second respondent would invite the attention of this Court that the Cross Objection in Cros.Obj.No.17 of 2020 has been filed in the above second appeal.

¶21

Therefore, Registry is directed to retain the Trial Court

¶22

records which is pertaining to the suit in O.S.No.573 of 1996, alongwith the Cross Objection in Cros.Obj.No.17 of 2020 till disposal of the said

¶23

Cross Objection.

¶24

20.12.2023.

¶25

Internet : Yes Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order apd

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

Page 2 of 4

S.A.No.305 of 2007

The Principal District Judge, Coimbatore.

¶31

The I Additional Subordinate Judge, Coimbatore.

¶32

The Section Officer, V.R.Section, High Court, Madras.

¶33

Page 3 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

S.A.No.305 of 2007

C.KUMARAPPAN,J.

apd

S.A.No.305 of 2007 and M.P.No.2 of 2007

¶38

20.12.2023

¶39

Page 4 of 4 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

C.Saraswathi, v. P.Subramaniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.Saraswathi, v. P.Subramaniam

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M. Mathi Vs Vijayakumar

Nallammal Vs Ravikumar

Mani Vs Jayaraman

Ramalingam Vs Rengasami Reddiar

B.S.N.Robert, Vs Kengai Ammal

Rukmani Ammal, Vs Palaniappan