The Madras High Court dismissed a second appeal invoking Section 100 CPC as abated, noting that the sole appellant and sole respondent were deceased without legal representatives brought on record.
The Second Appeal is dismissed as abated. No 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.
1
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED :22.04.2024
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A(MD))No.210 OF 2006
M.Ochathevar :Defendant/Appellant/Appellant
.vs.
K.Kumarasamy :Plaintiff/Respondent/Respondent
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.36 of 2002, dated 23.12.2003, on the file of Additional Sub-Judge, Dindigul confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.1976 of 2990, dated 24.08.2000, on the file of Ist Additional District Munsif, Dindigul.
For Appellant :Mr.N.Damodaran
For Respondent : Mr.M.P.Senthil
**JUDGMENT ***************
It is stated by counsel for appellant that both appellant and respondent are died.
2
22.04.2024
Index:Yes/No Internet:Yes/No
NCC:Yes/No
vsn
To
3
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
vsn
JUDGMENT MADE IN S.A(MD)No.210 OF 2006
22.04.2024
M.Ochathevar
K.Kumarasamy
S.Sountthar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
