Madras High Court Affirms Established Article 227 Procedure for Dismissal in Absence of Petitioners
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRP (MD) Nos. 2421 & 2422 of 2022 of A.S. Mothhilal Vs K. Rajangam |
| CNR | HCMD010752442020 |
| Decision Date | 03-01-2023 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for non-prosecution |
| Judgment Author | B. Pugalendhi, J. |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Precedent Value | Affirms established procedure |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms |
| Type of Law | Constitutional jurisdiction (Article 227) |
| Questions of Law | Whether civil revision petitions can be dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-appearance |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the Madras High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that civil revision petitions may be dismissed for non-prosecution if petitioners repeatedly fail to appear.
- Highlights the court’s inherent power under Article 227 to manage its docket and dismiss un-prosecuted matters.
- Serves as a reminder for counsel to ensure representation when matters are listed “for dismissal.”
- Demonstrates that no costs will ordinarily be imposed when petitions are dismissed for non-prosecution in this context.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court noted that on 20.12.2022, there was no representation for the petitioners, and the matter was ordered to be listed “for dismissal” on 22.12.2022.
- On the subsequent date (03.01.2023), petitioners again failed to appear.
- In exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the High Court dismissed the revision petitions for non-prosecution.
- Connected miscellaneous petitions were closed without imposing costs.
Factual Background
A.S. Mothhilal and others filed civil revision petitions under Article 227 challenging orders dated 16.07.2018 passed by the Special Deputy Collector, Revenue Court, Madurai. The matter was listed for hearing on 20.12.2022, but no representation appeared. The court adjourned the petitions “for dismissal” and fixed the next date as 03.01.2023. On that date, petitioners again failed to appear, leading to dismissal of the petitions for non-prosecution and closure of connected misc. petitions.
Statutory Analysis
- The High Court exercised its inherent power under Article 227 of the Constitution to regulate its proceedings.
- The judgment reaffirms that where petitioners do not attend hearings despite notices, the court may dismiss the petition for non-prosecution in its discretion.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
Citations
No external citations were cited in the judgment.