The High Court of Judicature at Madras dismissed two Civil Revision Petitions for non-prosecution after multiple listings. No counsel appeared for the petitioner, leading the court to exercise its option to quash the petitions.
Civil Revision Petitions No. 279/2006 and 280/2006 dismissed for non-prosecution. 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 26.04.2019
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE THIRU JUSTICE M. DURAISWAMY
C.R.P.(NPD)No.279 & 280 of 2006
A.Prabhavathi ... Petitioner/Petitioner/Petitioner
/4 th Respondent/4 th Defendant in both CRPs
v.
1. T.Rajagopal
2.T.Duraisamy
3.G.Balasubramaniam
4.C.D.Rajagopal ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiffs
in CRP No.279/2006
1. T.Rajagopal
2. G.Balasubramaniam
3.Thilakavathy
4.Pasupathi
5.Kazhanamala
5.Maduravani
7.Savithri
8.Radha
9.Lakshmi ... Respondents/Respondents/Plaintiff
in CRP No.280/2006
C.R.P.(NPD)No.279/2006 :- Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 26.03.2004 made in I.A.No.1176 of 2002 in I.A.No.2680 of 1991 in O.S.No.853 of 1984 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppur.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.280/2006 :- Civil Revision Petition filed under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code against the order and decreetal order dated 26.03.2004 made in I.A.No.1180 of 2002 in I.A.No.37 of 1994 in O.S.No.310 of 1993 on the file of District Munsif, Tiruppur.
For Petitioners : No Appearance (in both CRPs)
For Respondents in C.R.P. No.279/2006 : R1 to R4- died (steps due)
For Respondents in C.R.P. No.280/2006 : R1, R2 & R9- died (steps due) Not Ready in Notice - R3, R4, R5, R6, R7 & R8
COMMON ORDER
Consistently there is no representation for the petitioner. When the Civil Revision Petitions were listed for hearing on 12.04.2019, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that he has given change of Vakalat and handed over the papers to the sole petitioner. However, no counsel had entered appearance for the petitioner. In these circumstances, the Registry was directed to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list. Thereafter, when the Civil Revision Petitions were listed for hearing on 25.04.2019 printing the name of the petitioner in the cause list, none appeared for her. Hence, the Registry was directed to list the matters today i.e. on 26.04.2019 under the caption 'for dismissal'.
//True Copy//
Sub Assistant Registrar Rj To
The Principal District Munsif Court, Tiruppur.
Copy to
The Section Officer, VR Section, High Court,Madras.
C.R.P.(NPD)No.279 & 280 of 2006
rji[co]
srg 20/06/2019
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should dismiss the Civil Revision Petitions for non-prosecution in the absence of the petitioner.
What is the legal consequence of the petitioner's failure to appear for hearing despite listing for dismissal.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Prabhavathi
R1 to R4
R1 to R9
M. Duraismamy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
