Dismissed¶22

Murugan v. Malli Chettiar

Madras HC15 Apr 2025SA/1306/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution; no appearance for appellant Murugan; Section 100 Code of Civil Procedure; challenge to concurrent dismissal of suit by District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam (O.S.No.292 of 2000) and Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam (A.S.No.44 of 2006); respondents represented by Mr.P.R.Balasubramaniam; no costs; Madras High Court; decision dated 15.04.2025; no merits decided.

What did the court decide?

There being no representation for the Appellant, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution with no costs; no point on the merits was decided. ¶22

Murugan Vs Malli Chettiar — Madras HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

S.A.No.1306 of 2009

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 15.04.2025

¶4

CORAM :

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATHI KUMAR SUKUMARA KURUP

¶6

S.A. No.1306 of 2009

¶7

Murugan ... Appellant

¶8

Vs.

¶9

Malli Chettiar 2. Kannan

¶10

Natarajan ...Respondents

¶11

PRAYER : Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure against the Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2007 made in A.S.No.44 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2006 made in O.S.No.292 of 2000 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

¶12

For Appellant : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.P.R.Balasubramaniam

¶13

Page 1 of 5

¶14

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶15

S.A.No.1306 of 2009

¶16

JUDGMENT

¶17

This Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the Judgment and Decree dated 25.07.2007 made in A.S.No.44 of 2006 on the file of the Principal Sub Court, Gobichettipalayam and confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 28.09.2006 made in O.S.No.292 of 2000 on the file of the

¶18

District Munsif Court, Sathyamangalam, Erode District.

¶19

There is no representation for the Appellant.

¶20

The learned Counsel for the Respondent is also present in Court.

¶21

From the records, it is found that the Second Appeal had been preferred against the concurrent finding of the trial Court as well as first Appellate Court dismissing the Suit filed by the Plaintiff. Therefore, nothing survives in this Second Appeal.

¶22

In the result, this Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

¶23

15.04.2025

¶24

Index:Yes/No Internet: Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order

¶25

Page 2 of 5

¶26

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶27

S.A.No.1306 of 2009