Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, MADURAI BENCH
P. VELMURUGAN, K.K. RAMAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Rajaish Samuel Lazarus, represented by his power agent Padmini Lazarus - Appellant
Versus
Thangaiah Lazarus and Ors. - Respondents
A.S(MD)No.165 of 2015 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2015
Decided On : 12-08-2024
DISMISSAL - APPEAL SUIT - The court dismissed the appeal suit for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear or provide representation, highlighting the importance of active participation in legal proceedings and the consequences of neglecting to do so.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed an appeal suit under Section 41 Rule 1(A) r/w Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against a judgment and decree made in O.S.No.38 of 2012. The appellant had previously withdrawn representation from his counsel and indicated intentions to engage a new one.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the absence of the appellant and his counsel during the hearing, leading to the conclusion that the appeal suit could not proceed.
Issues: Whether the appeal suit should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear or provide representation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of the appellant and lack of representation warranted dismissal of the appeal suit, reinforcing the principle that parties must actively participate in their legal proceedings.
Result: The Appeal Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution, with no costs awarded.
JUDGMENT :
(P. Velmurugan, J.) :
(Prayer: Appeal Suit filed under Section 41 Rule 1(A) r/w Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.38 of 2012, dated 11.2.2015, on the file of Principal District Court, Madurai.)
When the matter is taken up for hearing today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant, who apeared in person. In the previous hearing date, the learned counsel for the appellant filed a memo stating that the appellant had took away the bundle from him along with signature obtained in No Objection letter for engaging a new counsel and for filing fresh vakalath on behalf of him. Hence, the learned counsel for the appellant on record withdrew his appearance. Therefore, Registry is directed to print the name of the appellant in the cause-list and to list the matter under the caption ‘’for dismissal’’ on 12.08.2024.
2. Today the matter has been listed under the caption ‘’for dismissal’’ by printing the name of the appellant in the cause-list. Despite the same, none appeared on behalf of the appellant either in person or through counsel. Therefore, this Court has no other option except to dismiss the appeal suit for non-prosecution.
3. In view of the same, the Appeal Suit is dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
AI
Non-prosecution of an appeal can lead to its dismissal.
Dismissal for non-prosecution due to lack of representation and inclination to prosecute the appeal.
Non-appearance and lack of inclination to prosecute the appeal can lead to dismissal of the suit.
Non-prosecution of an appeal may lead to its dismissal.
Failure to prosecute the appeal by not being represented in court can lead to dismissal.
Non-prosecution leading to dismissal of appeal.
Failure to prosecute the appeal can lead to its dismissal.
Non-prosecution due to lack of representation can lead to dismissal of an appeal.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
