SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Mad) 1495

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S.Sounthar, J.
Jothi and ors. – Appellants
Versus
C.Selvam - Respondent
S.A(MD)No.1108 of 2007
Decided On : 22-07-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: Mr.V.K.Vijayaraghavan

IMPORTANT POINT
The dismissal of an appeal for default underscores the necessity for parties to be present and represented in court proceedings to avoid adverse outcomes.

Headnote:

DEFAULT - SECOND APPEAL - The court dismissed the Second Appeal for default due to the appellants' failure to appear after restoration of the case. The court emphasized the importance of representation in legal proceedings and the consequences of non-appearance, leading to the dismissal of the appeal without costs.

Fact of the Case:

The Second Appeal was filed under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against a judgment and decree from the Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur, which confirmed a prior judgment from the District Munsif Court at Thiruvaiyaru. The appeal was previously dismissed for default but was restored upon the appellants' application.

Finding of the Court:

After restoration, the appeal was listed for hearing, but there was no representation from the appellants on the scheduled date. The court noted the absence of the appellants during both the first and second calls for the case.

Issues: Whether the Second Appeal should be dismissed for default due to the appellants' lack of representation.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of the appellants constituted sufficient grounds for dismissal of the appeal, reinforcing the principle that parties must actively participate in their legal proceedings.

Result: The Second Appeal was dismissed for default, with no costs awarded.

JUDGMENT :

S.Sounthar, J.

Second Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S.No.1 of 2003, dated 28.6.2005, on the file of Principal Sub-Court, Thanjavur confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S.No.114 of 2002, dated 27.1.2003,on the file of District Munsif Court at Thiruvaiyaru.

It is seen from the records that the Second Appeal was dismissed for default earlier on 08.02.2008.Thereafter, on application filed by the appellants,the matter has been restored.

2.After restoration, the Secon Appeal was listed for hearing on 19.07.21024. On that day, there was no representation for the appellants during the first call as well as the Second Call. In order to give an opportunity to the appellants, the Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption ‘’for dismissal’’ today.

3.Even today, there is no representation for the appellants. The learned counsel for the respondent is present. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top