Court Affirms Procedural Requirement for Personal Appearance; High Court Order Dismisses Inherent-Power and Revision Petitions for Non-Appearance
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMP/14059/2025 of R. Manickavel Vs S. Booma & CRP SR 86884/2025 |
| CNR | HCMA011242502025 |
| Decision Date | 27-06-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Honourable Mr Justice N. Sathish Kumar |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms requirement of appearance at admission motion for Section 151 CPC and Article 227 petitions |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Section 151 CPC); Constitutional (Article 227) |
| Questions of Law | Does non-appearance at admission motion warrant dismissal of an application under Section 151 CPC and a revision under Article 227? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that when a petitioner or their counsel fails to appear at the scheduled admission hearing, the court cannot proceed to consider the merits of applications under its inherent powers or under Article 227. Procedural discipline requires personal or represented attendance at admission stages. Absence at the fixed time amounts to waiver of the hearing, warranting dismissal of the petition and rejection of any connected revision. No further costs were imposed, underscoring the mandatory nature of appearance rather than discretionary penalty. |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Confirms that failure to appear at the admission hearing of Section 151 CPC applications or Article 227 revisions in the Madras High Court results in outright dismissal without consideration of merits.
- Reinforces procedural discipline: petitioners must ensure personal or counsel representation at admission stages.
- Signals to practitioners that absence will be fatal to both inherent-power petitions and revisional proceedings.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court called the petition under Section 151 CPC and the revision under Article 227 for admission on 27-06-2025.
- Neither the petitioner nor counsel appeared when the matters were taken up at 1 PM.
- In view of established procedural practice, non-appearance was treated as waiver of the hearing.
- Consequently, the Section 151 petition was dismissed and the unnumbered revision petition was rejected.
- The court did not examine the substantive merits due to procedural default.
Factual Background
In June 2025, R. Manickavel filed (a) an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dispense with the production of an original order and (b) a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution to set aside an order of the Principal Commercial Court, Chennai. Both matters were listed for admission before the Madras High Court on 27-06-2025. Neither the petitioner nor his counsel was present at the hearing, leading to the dismissal of the application and rejection of the revision petition for non-appearance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed
- No new precedent was broken; the judgment reaffirms the procedural requirement of appearance at the admission stage of inherent-power and revision petitions.