Kalidoss v. Kumar
Case brief
What is this about?
The High Court of Madras dismissed the Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 CPC for default. The petitioner did not appear despite multiple listings, leading the court to dispose of the matter without hearing.
What did the court decide?
Criminal Revision Case dismissed for default due to non-appearance of petitioner.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 17.06.2016
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G.CHOCKALINGAM
Crl.R.C.No.694 of 2009
Kalidoss ... Petitioner/Accused
Vs.
Kumar .. Respondent/Complainant
Prayer: Criminal Revision Case filed under Section 397 r/w.
401 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, against the judgment
dated 30.06.2009 in C.A.No.45 of 2009 on the file of the
learned Sessions Judge, Thiruvarur, confirming the judgment
dated 13.06.2006 in C.C.No.942 of 2004 on the file of the
learned Judicial Magistrate, Thiruvarur.
For Petitioner : No Appearance
For Respondent : Notice sent.
Service awaited
ORDER
When the matter was taken up for hearing on 01.06.2016,
there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
Hence, the matter was directed to be listed on 10.06.2016
under the caption "For Dismissal". On 10.06.2016, the matter
was directed to be listed under the same caption for dismissal
on 17.06.2016. Even today, when the matter is taken up for
hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the
petitioner. Hence, this Criminal Revision Case is dismissed
for default.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-IV)
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar
Jrl
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the Criminal Revision Case can be dismissed for default due to the non-appearance of the petitioner.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Kalidoss
- respondent
Kumar
Coram
G. Chockalingam
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court