The Court dismissed a review application challenging an order that dismissed a writ appeal for non-appearance. Holding that the application was not entertainable as the prior order had lapsed for 14 years, the Court refused to reopen the matter for hearing.
Review Application stands dismissed. 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.
Review Application No.211 of 2013
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 12.07.2024
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.KUMARAPPAN
Review Application No.211 of 2013 against
W.A.No.1627 of 2009
Manitha Neethi Paasarai
... Applicant
Vs.
Chennai – 641 018.
5.S.Paulraj
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 1 of 5
Review Application No.211 of 2013
6.Elangovan
... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Civil Procedure Code, to review of its order in W.A.No.1627 of 2009 dated 16.06.2010 and re-open the writ appeal for hearing on merits and allow the same on merits.
For Applicant : Mr.M.Mohamed Abbas For R1 to R3 : Mr.S.John J.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader For R4 : Mr.P.Saravana Sowmiyan For R5 : Mr.C.T.Murugappan
O R D E R
[Order of the Court was made by S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. ]
This Court passed an order in W.A.No.1627 of 2009, which reads as
follows;
“ 2. The appellant has neither appeared in
person nor has engaged any counsel to prosecute
the appeal. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not under obligation to send notice to the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 2 of 5
Review Application No.211 of 2013
appellant. It is the duty of the appellant to engage a counsel or to appear in person. Sine nobody appears on behalf of the appellant, we have no option but to dismiss the appeal. The writ appeal is dismissed accordingly. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”
entertainable. More so, the order of this Court passed on 16.08.2010 and now 14 years lapsed. Thus, we are not inclined to entertain the Review Application and consequently stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.M.S., J.] [C.K., J.] 12.07.2024
Jeni Index : Yes Neutral Citation : Yes Speaking order / Non-speaking order
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 3 of 5
Review Application No.211 of 2013
To
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 4 of 5
Review Application No.211 of 2013
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM, J. and C.KUMARAPPAN, J.
Jeni
Review Application No.211 of 2013
12.07.2024
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Page 5 of 5
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review application filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC against an order dismissing a writ appeal for default is entertainable.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manitha Neethi Paasarai
The State of Tamil Nadu
The Director General of Police
The Commissioner of Police
Rathinasabapathy
S.Paulraj
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
C.KUMARAPPAN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
