Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 18766
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI, J
P.Paramasivam – Appellant
Versus
R.Chinnasamy Udayar – Respondent
S.A.No.1614 of 2011 | M.P.No.1 of 2011
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No Appearance
For the Respondents: Mr.Ahilavan M.S, Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan, Mr.V,Ramesh
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No Appearance
For the Respondents: Mr.Ahilavan M.S, Mr.S.M.S.Shriram Narayanan, Mr.V,Ramesh
The absence of representation on behalf of the appellant led to the dismissal of the appeal for default.
Headnote:In this judgment, under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court considered an appeal against a decision confirming a decree by the subordinate judge. The appellants failed to appear, prompting the court to dismiss the appeal for default. The judgment mainly revolves around procedural aspects and the lack of representation. The issue framed was on whether the absence of the appellant warranted a dismissal. Ultimately, the court concluded, stating, 'Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.'
ORDER
When the matter was listed on 03.03.2026, there was no representation on the appellant side. Hence, the Registry was directed to list the case under the caption for dismissal on 06.03.2026. Even today (06.03.2026), When the matter was called, there is no representation on the side of the appellant. Learned counsel for the respondents are present before this Court. Hence, the second appeal stands dismissed for default. No costs.
Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
