Sugunaleela v. C.Manickam

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

Dated : 11.01.2019 Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice C.V.KARTHIKEYAN S.A.No.689 of 2001 1.R.Sugunaleela 2.T.R.Srinivasan 3.R.Amarendra Babu ... Appellants/3rd Parties Vs 1.C.Manickam 2.C.Krishnamurthi ... Respondents 1 and 2/Plaintiffs 3.Pramela Sethuraman 4.Umesh Babu 5.Jayashree 6.Mala @ Rajashree

...Respondents 3 to 6/Defendants 2 to 5

Prayer: The Second Appeal is filed under Section 100 of CPC, against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.138 of 1991 dated 24.01.2000 on the file of the Principal District Court, Salem confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.957 of 1984 dated 09.11.1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Salem. For Appellants : T.R.Rajaraman For Respondents : No appearance

JUDGMENT

The learned counsel for the appellants states that they have not received any instructions from the party. It is also stated that the appellants had taken away the bundle. Since the second appeal is of the year 2001, I hold that it is a deliberate ploy on the part of the appellants to take some more adjournments. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

2.Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs.

Sd/- Assistant Registrar(CS VI) //True Copy// Sub Assistant Registrar smv To 1.The Principal District Court, Salem.

2.The Principal District Munsif Court, Salem. 3.The Section Officer, VR Section Madras High Court.

S.A.No.689 of 2001 sj[co] srg 05/02/2019 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/