Gajalakshmi v. K. Ramalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
In First Appeal A.S.No.636 of 2009, the appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear on the prescribed listing date despite representation and instructions from the registry.
What did the court decide?
The First Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
What the court decided
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS Dated : 10.01.2018 CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.DURAISWAMY A.S.No.636 of 2009 & M.P.No.1 of 2009
Gajalakshmi ... Appellant/Plaintiff
v.
1.K.Ramalingam 2.Mallika 3.Jamuna 4.P.Radhakrishnan 5.P.Kothandan .. Respondents/Defendants
First Appeal filed under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure judgment and decree dated 22.12.2008 made in O.S.No.281 of 2004 by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court No.II, Kanchipuram.
For Appellants : No Appearance For Respondents : Mr.A.Murali - for R1 Mr.K.Govi Ganesan - for R4 & R5 not ready Reg.RR2 &R3 in Notice J U D G M E N T
When the matter was listed for hearing on 13.12.2017, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant made a representation that he has given change of vakalat and also handed over the papers to the appellant for engaging some other counsel. Thereafter, the Registry was directed to verify any counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the appellant and print the name of the counsel, who had filed change of vakalat, if not, print the name of the appellant and adjourned the matter to 08.01.2018. 2. On verification, Registry found that no counsel had entered appearance on behalf of the appellant, therefore, name of the appellant was printed in the cause list on 08.01.2018. Since none appeared for the appellant on 08.01.2018 Registry was directed to list the matter under the caption for dismissal on 10.01.2018.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal can be dismissed for non-appearance of the appointed counsel.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
Gajalakshmi
- respondent
1.K.Ramalingam
- respondent
2.Mallika
- intervenor
3.Jamuna
- respondent
4.P.Radhakrishnan
- respondent
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court