Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J
Rathinal, W/o. Chinnaraj, Vijayal, W/o. Subramaniam – Appellant
Versus
Kannammal, W/o. Raju – Respondent
SA No. 33 of 2022 | CMP No.645 of 2022
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. failed representation leads to dismissal of appeal. (Para 1) |
| 2. court process involves issuing notices for non-representation. (Para 2) |
| 3. no costs ordered in case of appeal dismissal. (Para 3) |
JUDGMENT
It is seen from the records that the learned counsel, who entered appearance for the appellants reported ‘no instructions’ as early as on 21.10.2024 and hence, as per order, notice was issued to the appellants. Thereafter, notice has been served to the appellants 4, 5, 6 and 7 and the notice taken to the other appellants were returned with an endorsement “ no such addressee ”. Till date, no other counsel entered appearance for appellants. 2. When the matter was came up for hearing on 04.03.2026, there was no representation on behalf of the appellants in the forenoon as well as afternoon.
Therefore, Registry was directed to list the second appeal under the caption “for dismissal” on 06.03.2026. Even today, there is no representation for the appellants.
3. In view of the above, this second appeal is dismissed as default. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected civil miscellaneous petition is closed.
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
