Back
2024 Supreme(Mad) 1661
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
S. SOUNTHAR, J.
D. Karuppiah – Appellant
Versus
Periasamy – Respondent
S.A. (MD) No. 608 of 2009, M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2009
Decided On : 01-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Respondent: A.N. Ramanathan.
Important Points
The dismissal of a Second Appeal for default underscores the critical importance of a party's representation in legal proceedings and adherence to procedural norms.
Subject
Civil Law - Appeals
Act Referred
Headnote
CIVIL PROCEDURE - SECOND APPEAL - The court dismissed the Second Appeal for default due to the appellant's failure to appear despite proper service of notice, emphasizing the importance of representation in legal proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code against the judgment and decree made in A.S. No. 45 of 2008, which confirmed the earlier judgment in O.S. No. 214 of 2002. Despite being served with notice, the appellant did not appear for the hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court noted the absence of the appellant during the hearing and decided to dismiss the appeal for default, highlighting the necessity of the appellant's presence in court.
Issues: Whether the Second Appeal should be dismissed for default due to the appellant's non-appearance.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the absence of the appellant, despite proper service of notice, warranted the dismissal of the appeal, reinforcing the procedural requirement for parties to be present during hearings.
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. 45 of 2008, dated 28.01.2009, on the file of Subordinate Judge, Aruppukkottai confirming the judgment and decree made in O.S. No. 214 of 2002, on the file of District Munsif Court, Aruppukkottai.
1. When the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing on 28.06.2024, it was noted that inspite of service of Elevation Memo to the appellant, no body entered appearance. Recording the same, the Registry was directed to list the Second Appeal under the caption “for dismissal” today by printing the name of the appellant in the cause-list. Today, the Second Appeal is listed under the caption “for dismissal” by printing the name of the appellant in the cause-list. Even today, there is no representation for the appellant.
2. Hence, the Second Appeal is dismissed for default. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
