Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 19290
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R.Sakthivel, J
D.Singaravelu – Appellant
Versus
Amudha Naicker – Respondent
SA NO. 526 OF 2002 | CMP No. 4788 of 2003
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms.Vidhya Sree for M/s.A.Sumathi
For the Respondents: M/s.Y.Jothish Chander
An appeal can be dismissed for default when the counsel reports no instructions, indicating abandonment of the case.
Headnote:The appeal sought to challenge the judgment and decree dated November 25, 1994 in A.S.No.40 of 1992 and subsequent judgments from earlier cases. The court noted counsel's report of no instructions, leading to the dismissal of the Second Appeal for default. No costs were awarded, and the connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition was closed. The core issue demonstrated was whether the appeal should be allowed following the failure of representation by the appellant's counsel. The court determined that in light of the absence of instructions, the appeal is dismissed for default, with no order as to costs.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. counsel's failure to provide instructions leads to case dismissal. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. final ruling of no costs and dismissal of connected petition. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
Ms.Vidhya Sree, representing Ms.A.Sumathi, learned Counsel on record for the Appellant is before this Court and Mr.Y.Jothish Chander, learned Counsel on record for the First Respondent is before this Court through Video Conferencing mode.
2. The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant reports no instructions and to that effect she has made an endorsement in the case file. Scanned reproduction of the same is as follows:
3. In view of the endorsement made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, this Second Appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently connected connected Civil Miscellaneous Petition is closed.
