SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 29514

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.POORNIMA, J
R.G.Arulmany – Appellant
Versus
S.Essakkiappan – Respondent
SA No.546 of 2003|CMA No.815 of 2003



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.M.P.Senthil, Mr.J.Antony Jesus
For the Respondents: No appearance

Appeals dismissed for appellant's default due to non-prosecution despite adjournments.

Headnote:Under Section 100 C.P.C. and Order 43 Rule 1 C.P.C., second appeal and civil miscellaneous appeal filed against judgments of II Additional District Judge, Tirunelveli in AS No.132 of 2002 reversing decree of Principal Sub Judge, Tirunelveli in OS No.279 of 1995. Court observed appellant's lack of interest despite adjournments. No issues framed as matter not pursued. Both appeals dismissed for default. No costs.

COMMON JUDGMENT

In spite of several adjournments, the appellant in both matters is not interested in pursuing the matter. Hence, both the appeals are dismissed for default. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top