The High Court of Madras dismissed a Civil Revision Petition for default as the petitioner failed to appear and was not represented on the date of hearing despite the matter being posted for orders.
The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default. No costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 03.01.2017
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.V.MURALIDARAN
C.R.P.No.75 of 2011
K.A.Prabakaran
.. Petitioner
Vs
S.Moosa
Rep. By his General Power of Attorney Agent Mr.AKM.Junaid,
.. Respondent
Prayer: Civil Revision Petition filed under Section 25 of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, 1960, against the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2010 made in RCA.No.343 of 2007 passed by
VIII Judge, Court of Small Causes Court, Chennai, confirming the judgment and decree dated 09.03.2007 in RCOP.No.1139 of 2006 passed by XIII Judge, Court of Small Causes, Chennai.
For Petitioner : No Appearance For Respondent : Mr.S.Natana Rajan
2
M.V.MURALIDARAN.J.,
vs
O R D E R
On 02.01.2017, when the matter was called, there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner and the same was posted today (05.01.2017) under the caption "for orders". Even today when the matter was called, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
2.Therefore, it is made clear that the petitioner is not interested to proceed the case. Hence, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed for default. No costs.
03.01.2017
vs
Index: Yes/No Internet: Yes/No
To
C.R.P.No.75 of 2011 http://www.judis.nic.in
K.A.Prabakaran
S.Moosa
M.V.MURALIDARAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
