I. Pandiarajan v. R. Ravi
Case brief
What is this about?
This judgment records the default dismissal of a second appeal filed by the appellant who remained unrepresented as his counsel could not contact him. The court declined to adjourn, treating the absence as a default.
What did the court decide?
The second appeal was dismissed for default; no costs awarded; connected miscellaneous petition closed.
What the court decided
S.A.(MD) No.150 of 2012
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 28.06.2022 CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.SESHASAYEE S.A.(MD) No.150 of 2012 and C.M.P.(MD) No.2911 of 2018
I.Pandiarajan .. Appellant/Appellant/Plaintiff
-vs-
R.Ravi .. Respondent/Respondent/Defendant
Prayer:- Appeal filed under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code to set aside the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2011 made in A.S.No.11 of 2010 on the file of the Principal Sub-Court, Dindigul, confirming the judgment and decree in O.S.No.1465 of 2004 dated 21.12.2009 passed by the Additional District Munsif Court, Dindigul.
For Appellant : Mr.S.Ramu For Respondent : Mr.H.Lakshmi Shankar
J U D G M E N T
The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he is not hearing anything from his client for the past 4 years and that even the registered post he sent was returned unserved. He submitted that he was given two cell numbers of his client, but neither of the numbers could he able to access his client. The learned counsel further submitted that he may not be able to proceed with the case.
Issues for consideration
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a second appeal, where no hearing takes place due to the appellant's unavailability, should be allowed or dismissed.
Parties & counsel
- appellant
I. Pandiarajan
- respondent
R. Ravi
Coram
N.Seshasayee
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court