D GOVINDARAJULU Vs. LAKSHMI BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS second appeal is focussed by D1, D7 (in O.S.No.4083 of 1983) and D12 and D13 (in A.S.No.268 of 2002) animadverting upon the judgment and decree dated 19.01.2005 passed by the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.III, Chennai in A.S.No.268 of 2002 confirming the judgment and decree dated 29.04.2002 passed by the learned III Assistant Judge, City Civil Court, Chennai in O.S.No.4083 of 1983, which is the suit for partition. For convenience sake, the parties are referred to here under according to their litigative status before the trial Court.

(2.) THE first respondent/ plaintiff filed the suit for partition as against the defendants. D1 entered appearance and filed the written statement; D2 to D4 filed the written statement separately and D7 also filed a separate written statement resisting the suit. THE trial court framed the relevant issued based on the pleadings.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the plaintiff would argue that failure to serve notice to those who remained exparte before the lower Court as well as the Appellate Court in the Second Appeal was not proper as they are entitled to notice. I would like to highlight that the appellant is right in not taking up notice to those parties who remained exparte before the lower Courts as it is based on the established practice of this Court as well as settled law.