Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J
Duraiammal – Appellant
Versus
K.Lakshmi – Respondent
S.A.No. 626 of 2014
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. absence of representation leads to dismissal. (Para 1) |
| 2. final decision for non-prosecution. (Para 2) |
J U DGMENT
When the matter was listed for hearing on 18.11.2025, there was no representation for the appellant, hence, Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption “for dismissal” on 19.11.2025 (i.e.,) today. When the matter is .called today there is no representation for the appellant and hence it is clear and evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the second appeal.
2. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.
19.11.2025 Index : Yes/No Speaking order/Non-speaking order dpq To
1. The III Additional City Civil Court, Chennai.
2. The III Assistant City Civil Court, Chennai.
3. The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court of Madras Chennai.
D r.A.D. MARIA CLETE , J.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
