Madras High Court affirms inherent power to dismiss revision petitions for default when the petitioner’s counsel fails to appear.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRP/3262/2017 of S.PRABAKARAN Vs THIRU.A.R.GOVARDHAN |
| CNR | HCMA011870092017 |
| Decision Date | 03-09-2021 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for default |
| Judgment Author | V.M. Velumani, J. |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi |
When a revision petition is listed “for dismissal” due to non-appearance and there is no representation on the subsequent date, the High Court is entitled to dismiss the petition for default without further notice. |
Factual Background
- The petitioner filed C.R.P.(NPD).No.3262 of 2017 under Section 115 CPC challenging the order dated 23.01.2012 in I.A.No.11252 of 2011 in O.S.No.14281 of 2010.
- The matter was listed on 01.09.2021 and directed “for dismissal” because there was no representation on behalf of the petitioner.
- On 03.09.2021, with still no appearance by or on behalf of the petitioner, the revision petition was dismissed for default without costs.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Upon first hearing (01.09.2021), noting absence of the petitioner’s counsel, the court ordered the petition to be posted “for dismissal.”
- On the next date (03.09.2021), since the petitioner again failed to appear or be represented, the court exercised its power to dismiss the petition for default.
- The judgment relies on the procedural mandate under Section 115 CPC and established practice that non-prosecution warrants dismissal.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The decision reaffirms the High Court’s established practice of dismissing petitions for default when a party fails to appear.