Selvi v. Rajangam
Case brief
What is this about?
A Second Appeal under Section 100 of CPC was dismissed for default as no representation appeared from the appellants despite a direct request to list the matter under the caption 'For Dismissal'.
What did the court decide?
The appeal was dismissed for default due to non-appearance of counsel after being listed for dismissal.
What the court decided
S.A.(MD)No.624 of 2009
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENGH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED: 03.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SOUNTHAR
S.A.(MD)No.624 of 2009
1.Selvi 2.Maniammal 3.Petchiammal
... Appellants
Vs
1.Rajangam 2.Moorthy
... Respondents
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of C.P.C. against the judgment and decree dated 11.03.2005 made in A.S.No.227/2003 on the file of the III Additional Subordinate Court, Madurai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2003 made in O.S.No.230 of 1999 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Tirumangalam.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Selvi and others
- respondent
Rajangam and others
Coram
S. Soundhkar
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court