In a second appeal filed under Section 100 Cr.P.C., the Madras High Court dismissed the appeal on abatement because the sole appellant died without legally impleading heirs within the limitation period.
The second appeal is dismissed on the ground of abatement due to death of the appellant without impleading legal heirs.
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.
S.A.No.1678 of 2001
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 21.11.2024
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE V.SIVAGNANAM
SA.(MD)No.1678 of 2001
Durai Pandian ... Appellant
Vs.
1.J.Samuel 2.Beula 3.Daniel 4.Aldrin 5.Vimala 6.Sudhakar ... Respondents
PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 Cr.P.C., to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the I Additional District Judge-cumChief Judicial Magistrate, Tirunelveli, in A.S.No.214 of 1999, dated 19.12.2000 reversing the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.232 of 1995 dated 09.07.1999, passed by the Additional Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli.
1/4
S.A.No.1678 of 2001
For Appellant : Mr.Dr.D.Gunasekaran For Respondents : Mr.D.Nallathambi – for R1
JUDGMENT
When the matter came up for hearing, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the sole appellant died and not able to contact the legal heirs and steps have not been taken to implead the legal heirs within the period of limitation and he has filed a memo to that effect. Memo is recorded.
abated. No costs.
21.11.2024 NCC : Yes / No Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes / No RM
2/4
S.A.No.1678 of 2001
To
S.A.No.1678 of 2001
V.SIVAGNANAM,J.
RM
S.A.No.1678 of 2001
21.11.2024
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Durai Pandian
J. Samuel
Beula
Daniel
Aldrin
Vimala
V.Sivagnanam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
