Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, C. KUMARAPPAN, JJ.
S. Kumaresan & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
The State of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by Secretary to Government Finance (PC), Department & Ors. - Respondents
Writ Appeal Sr.No.101121 of 2021
Decided On : 14-06-2024
MAINTAINABILITY - WRIT APPEAL - The court upheld the Registry's objection regarding the maintainability of the writ appeal due to the discrepancy in the number of petitioners listed, emphasizing the necessity for all petitioners to be included in the appeal as it challenges a common order.
Fact of the Case:
The writ appeal was filed by four petitioners, while the original writ petition was filed by 42 petitioners, leading to a maintainability issue raised by the Registry.
Finding of the Court:
The court confirmed the Registry's objection, stating that the appeal must include all petitioners as the order being challenged was common to all.
Issues: Whether the writ appeal is maintainable with only a subset of the original petitioners listed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court highlighted the procedural requirement that all petitioners must be included in the appeal when challenging a common order, reinforcing the importance of proper representation in legal proceedings.
Result: The writ appeal was rejected due to the failure to comply with the procedural requirements regarding the number of petitioners.
JUDGMENT :
S.M. Subramaniam, J.
[PRAYER: Writ Appeal filed under Clause 15 of Letters Patent to set aside the order passed in W.P.No.29853 of 2015 dated 21.12.2020.]
The Registry, High Court has raised objection and listed the matter under the caption "for maintainability" on the ground that the writ petition was instituted by 42 petitioners. However, the writ appeal has shown only four petitioners in the cause title. Therefore, the Registry returned the papers by stating that the appellants should implead all the writ petitioners, since it is a common order passed by the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge in the writ appeal. The Registry bundle was mis-placed and reconstructed and posted before this Court. The objection raised by the Registry is in consonance with the procedures and there is no infirmity.
2. Thus, we confirm the objection raised by the Registry. Consequently, the writ appeal in W.A.Sr.No.101121 of 2021 stands rejected. It is for the appellant to comply with the defects, if any and represent the same or file a petition afresh.
All petitioners must be included in a writ appeal challenging a common order to ensure maintainability.
A writ appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant fails to appear and show interest in pursuing the case.
Writ appeals can be dismissed as infructuous when the underlying cause of action has ceased to exist.
Active participation in legal proceedings is essential, and failure to appear can lead to dismissal of appeals.
A writ appeal can be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellants fail to appear and show interest in pursuing the case.
A legal action becomes infructuous when the underlying cause for the action ceases to exist, warranting dismissal of the appeal.
The amendment to the Tamil Nadu Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1987 can nullify existing disputes, leading to the dismissal of related legal proceedings.
A recorded compromise between disputing parties can effectively resolve the matter, eliminating the need for further judicial intervention.
An order passed by the Civil Court is amenable to scrutiny by the High Court only in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and no letters patent appeal would be mai....
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
