Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
ABDUL QUDDHOSE, J
P.Rajendran – Appellant
Versus
1.The Commissioner Madurai Corporation Anna Maligai Madurai-625 002 – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. closure of proceedings due to non-participation. (Para 1) |
| 2. petitioner's repeated absences indicate lack of will to continue the case. (Para 2) |
O R D E R
This writ petition is listed today under the caption “for dismissal”.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner is present. Once again, he seeks an adjournment. Even on the last hearing date i.e., on 14.10.2025, there was no representation on the side of the petitioner. This writ petition is of the year 2021. No further adjournment can be granted. It can now be inferred that the petitioner is not interested in prosecuting this writ petition.
3. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed for non-prosecution.
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
