DHANAPPAN Vs. KANNAPPA NAICKER; MUNUSAMI NAICKER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge is made in this Memorandum of Second Appeal as against the Decree and Judgment dated 26.03.1993 and made in A.S.No.72 of 1990 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Tindivanam, reversing the Decree and Judgment dated 05.10.1990 and made in O.S.No.81 of 1985 on the file of the learned District Munsif, Ginjee.

(2.) The appellant herein is the plaintiff, whereas the respondents are the defendants in the suit.

(3.) When the appeal came up for hearing on 06.08.2014, Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanathan, learned counsel for the appellant, was present and ready to argue the case. On the other hand, despite the service of notice on the 1st respondent, he has not chosen to appear either in person or through his counsel. It is also pertinent to note here that insofar as the 2nd respondent is concerned, substituted service through paper publication was effected on 10.12.2012, and inspite of that, he has not chosen to appear before this Court. Therefore, there is no other go for this Court excepting to hear Mr.J.R.K.Bhavanathan, learned counsel for the appellant and dispose of this appeal on merits in the absence of the respondents 1 and 2.