Marimuthu v. Girija
Case brief
What is this about?
The Madras High Court dismissed the second appeal as abated. The sole respondent had died, and no legal representatives were brought on record despite the expiry of the ten-year period allowed for substitution.
What the court decided
S.A(MD)No.432 of 2005
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 15.02.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD)No.432 of 2005
Marimuthu
... Appellant/Respondent/Defendant
Vs.
Girija ... Respondent/Appellant/Plaintiff
PRAYER :-
This Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the judgment and decree, dated 30.09.2004 made in A.S.No.161 of 2003 on the file of the I Additional District Court (PCR), Trichy, modifying the judgment and decree, dated 13.08.2001 made in O.S.No.120 of 1994 on the file of the I Additional Subordinate Court, Trichy.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the second appeal abated due to the death of the sole respondent without legal representatives being brought on record within the statutory period.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Marimuthu
- respondent
Girija
Coram
S. Sounthar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court