Arulmozhi v. Thangarasu
Case brief
What is this about?
In this second appeal filed under Section 100 CPC, the bench was informed that the first respondent had passed away. The court held that since no legal representatives were brought on record, the appeal necessarily abated and was dismissed accordingly.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal stands dismissed as abated. No costs.
What the court decided
S.A.No.89 of 2019
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.04.2023
CORAM
MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE
S.A.No.89 of 2019
Arulmozhi
... Appellant
Vs. 1.Thangarasu 2.Subramanian ... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, seeking to set aside the judgement and decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 2008, dated 26.07.2012, on the file of the Court of the District Munsif, Sirkali as confirmed in A.S.No.87 of 2012, dated 12.04.2013 on the file of the Court of Principal Sub-Ordinate Judge, Mayiladuthurai.
For Appellant : Mr.A.Muthukumar For R1 : Mr.B.Mahendra Naidu For R2 : Mr.P.Anbarasan
1/2
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal should proceed given the death of one of the respondents without substitute parties being brought on record.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Arulmozhi
- respondent
Thangarasu
- respondent
Subramanian
Coram
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court