Second appeal dismissed as abated because counsel for the appellant was unable to obtain details of the legal representatives of the deceased sole appellant, and keeping the appeal pending would serve no purpose. No order as to 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.
SA.No.1638 of 2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 01.04.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
S.A.No.1638 of 2008
N.Prakasam
... Appellant
... Respondents
Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree dated 28.03.2007 passed in A.S.No.315 of 2006 on the file of the Addl. District Judge, Fast Track Court IV, Chennai confirming the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.6740 of 1999 dated 05.12.2005 on the file of the learned XI Asst. Judge, City Civil Court, Madras in so far as the same is against the plaintiff and prays for setting aside the same.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Sadasharam For Respondents : Mr.V.Regu Rajan for R1 Mr.S.Saravanan for R2 R3-Dismissed vide Court order dated 14.12.2022 *****
1/3
SA.No.1638 of 2008
JUDGMENT
The learned counsel for the appellant would submit before this Court that in spite of his best effort, he was not in a position to get the details of LRs of the sole appellant. Therefore, keeping the appeal without having any progress will not serve any purpose. Hence, this Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. There shall be no order as to costs.
01.04.2024
kmi
To
2/3
SA.No.1638 of 2008
C.KUMARAPPAN, J
kmi
S.A.No.1638 of 2008
01.04.2024
3/3
1 provisions across 1 enactments
N.Prakasam
S.Geethaikannan
Corporation of Chennai Rep. by its Commissioner
A.Sivasankaran
C.Kumarappan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
