SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 23835

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S. SOUNTHAR, J
N.Sekar – Appellant
Versus
Hari Krishnan – Respondent
SA No. 464 of 2020 | CMP No.9824 of 2020



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No appearance

Absence of representation by the appellant leads to dismissal of appeal as per procedural requirements.

Headnote:The judgment concerns the dismissal of a second appeal under Section 100 of CPC due to the appellant's absence during hearings on multiple dates. The court confirmed the previous judgments of the Sessions Judge Mahila Court and the Subordinate Judge, establishing the importance of representation in appellate proceedings. The court ultimately ruled that the absence warranted the dismissal of the appeal.

JUDGMENT

When the matter was listed for hearing on 13.03.2026, there was no representation for the appellant in the forenoon as well as afternoon. In order to give opportunity to the appellant, the Registry was directed to list the second appeal under the caption “ for dismissal ” on 16.03.2026. Even today, there is no representation on behalf of the appellant. Hence, this second appeal is dismissed for default. There shall be no order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top