Madras High Court
Vedanthipillai vs C.Khaja Mohideen on 4 April, 2016
Author: R.Mahadevan
Bench: R.Mahadevan
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
DATED : 04.04.2016
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.MAHADEVAN
S.A.(MD)No.360 of 2005
and
C.M.P.(MD)No.3161 of 2005
1.Vedanthipillai
2.Manickam
3.Surulivelu
4.G.Nagarathinam (died)
5.G.Amaravathi
6.Meenakshi
7.Chellam
8.Saroja
9.M.Senthil Raj
(9th appellant brought on record as LRs of
the deceased fourth appellant vide order
dated 29.03.2012 made in M.P.(MD)Nos.1
to 3 of 2012 in S.A.(MD)No.360 of 2005)... Appellants
Vs.
C.Khaja Mohideen ... Respondent
Appeal filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the
judgment and decree dated 27.09.2004 made in A.S.No.83 of 2002 on the file of
the Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam, modifying the judgment and decree in
O.S.No.647 of 1996 dated 27.02.2002, on the file of the District Munsif,
Uthamapalayam.
!For Appellants : No appearance
^For Respondent : Mr.C.Mahadevan
:JUDGMENT
Despite several adjournments earlier, on 24.02.2016, when this appeal was taken up, there was no representation for the appellants and hence it was directed to be posted under the caption ?for dismissal? on 02.03.2016. On 02.03.2016, at request, it was adjourned for a period of two weeks, and the dismissal caption was removed. Thereafter, when this matter came up on 21.03.2016, at request, it was adjourned to 28.03.2016. On 28.03.2016, at request, it was directed to be posted today with an observation that no further adjournment will be granted and accordingly it is posted today. Even today there is no representation on behalf of the appellants.
2.Despite many opportunities given, as stated above, there is no representation for the appellants today. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1.The Subordinate Judge, Periyakulam.
2.The District Munsif, Uthamapalayam..