Dismissed
Shantha v. R. Ruckmani
Madras HCSA/276/2017
Case brief
AI extract
What is this about?
Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of CPC was dismissed as non-prosecution because the appellants' counsel did not appear, despite prior notice of change of vakalat.
What did the court decide?
Second Appeal dismissed as non-prosecution; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed with no costs.
What the court decided
AI extract
¶1
S.A.No.276 of 2017
¶2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
¶3
Dated: 04.03.2024
¶4
Coram:
¶5
THE HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE P.B.BALAJI
¶6
S.A.No.276 of 2017 & C.M.P.No.6568 of 2017
¶7
- Shantha.
¶8
- Dhamodaran.
¶9
- Rajan.
¶10
- Ravi Kumar. ... Appellants /versus/
¶11
- R.Ruckmani.
¶12
- Kaliammal.
¶13
- The Commissioner, Coimbatore Corporation, Coimbatore.
Parties & counsel
AI extract
- appellant
Shantha
- appellant
Dhamodaran
- appellant
Rajan
- appellant
Ravi Kumar
- respondent
R.Ruckmani
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court