Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1492
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
M.P.Mathuraisamy Ambalam and ors. – Appellants
Versus
S.M.Natarajan and ors. – Respondents
S.A(MD)No.916 OF 2007 and M.P(MD)No.1 of 2007
Decided On : 22-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Mr. SRA. Ramachandran, Addl.Govt.Pleader
Important Points
The dismissal of an appeal for default underscores the necessity of active participation and adherence to procedural rules in civil proceedings.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeals
Act Referred
Headnote
DEFAULT - SECOND APPEAL - The court dismissed the Second Appeal due to the appellants' failure to appear and prosecute the case, highlighting the importance of representation and procedural compliance in civil litigation.
Fact of the Case:
The Second Appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against a judgment and decree from the Ist Additional Sub-ordinate Court, Madurai, which confirmed a prior decision from the District Munsif Court, Melur. The first respondent had died, and no legal representatives were brought on record.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no representation for the appellants during the hearing, and despite opportunities given, they failed to take necessary steps to continue the appeal.
Issues: Whether the Second Appeal could proceed in the absence of the appellants and without legal representatives for the deceased respondent.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the absence of representation and failure to comply with procedural requirements warranted the dismissal of the appeal for default.
Result: The Second Appeal was dismissed for default, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.
JUDGMENT :
S.SOUNTHAR, J.
PRAYER: Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.193 of 2006, dated 22.1.2007, on the file of Ist Additional Sub-ordinate Court, Madurai confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No. 164/2002, dated 1.9.2005, on the file of District Munsif Court, Melur.
When the Second Appeal came up for hearing on 18.07.2024, there was no representation for the appellants. It is also seen that the first respondent died on 29.01.2021. No steps have been taken to bring on record the legal representatives of the the deceased first respondent. In order to give an opportunity to the appellants, the Registry was directed to list the Second Appeal under the caption ‘’for dismissal’’ today.
2.Even today, there is no representation for the appellants. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
