Rajesh M.Mehta vs Indumathi (Died) - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26687

Headnote Court Copy Facts Arguments Court observation Judicial Analysis Case Map Category Hierarchy Table of Content

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 26687

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
P.Velmurugan, K.Govindarajanthilakavadi, JJ
Rajesh M.Mehta – Appellant
Versus
Indumathi (Died) – Respondent
O.S.A.SR.No.204102 of 2025 | C.M.P.No. 3691 of 2026 | T.O.S.No.25 of 2011

Important Points

Dismissal of petition and appeal for appellant's lack of diligence in filing service affidavit.

Subject

Civil - Procedural Dismissal

Act Referred

Limitation Act: S.5
Madras High Court Original Side Rules: R.Order XXXVI 1, R.Order XIV 8

Headnote

The appeal arises from a testamentary proceeding under the Madras High Court Original Side Rules and Letters Patent. Essential facts involve failure to file Affidavit of Service within stipulated time despite court directions for notice. The court found lack of diligence by appellant in prosecuting the case. Issues framed concern procedural compliance and condonation of delay. The court observed non-filing of service affidavit indicates default, applying principles of diligence in appeals. Consequently, the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was dismissed for default, and the Original Side Appeal rejected at SR stage.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.B.M.Subash
For the Respondents: Not ready in notice

Table of Content
1. court directed notice issuance, no service affidavit filed. (Para 1)
2. late filing of affidavit not reflected in records. (Para 2)
3. dismissal for lack of diligence in prosecution. (Para 3)

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by P.VELMURUGAN, J.

It is seen from the records that this Court, by order dated

20.02.2026, directed issuance of notice through Court as well as privately, returnable by 19.03.2026. However, no Affidavit of Service has been filed within the stipulated time.

2. The learned counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that the Affidavit of Service has been filed before the Registry today (23.03.2026), however, it is not reflected in the records.

3. The conduct of the appellant/petitioner indicates lack of diligence in prosecuting the case. Hence, this Civil Miscellaneous Petition is dismissed for default. Consequently, the Original Side Appeal is rejected at the S.R.Stage itself.