Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 37236

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
C.V. Karthikeyan, K. Rajasekar, JJ
M.P. Shanthi @ Sangeetha – Appellant
Versus
P.Pukraj – Respondent
AS Nos. 491 & 492 of 2022|CMP Nos. 2388 & 2354 of 2026

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: No appearance
For the Respondents: Mr.D.Shivakumaran for R1 to R7 R19 & R9, Mr.D.Shivakumaran for R7 to R15

Appeals dismissed for non-prosecution due to appellant's counsel absence.

Headnote:First Paragraph: Appeal under S.96 CPC against judgments in O.S.No.45 of 2015 and O.S.No.32 of 2008 by Additional District Judge, Krishnagiri. Facts involve appellant's absence on multiple occasions. Court found non-prosecution warranting dismissal. Second Paragraph: Issue framed as failure to prosecute appeals due to counsel's absence. Ratio: Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution as per court procedure. Last Paragraph: Appeals stand dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by C.V.Karthikeyan J.)

The matters had been listed under the caption 'for dismissal'. The learned counsel for the appellant is not present. In the earlier occasion also the counsel for the appellant is not present.

2.The appeals stand dismissed for non prosecution. No costs.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are also closed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document