When a second appeal is dismissed for default due to non-appearance of parties, the High Court does not adjudicate the merits or address substantive legal issues. Such dismissal does not create binding precedent and has no precedential value for future cases. The order merely disposes of the individual appeal as per procedure.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/329/2022 of PACKIARAJ Vs SHAJAKHAN |
| CNR | HCMA010655682021 |
| Date of Registration | 13-04-2022 |
| Decision Date | 18-04-2024 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed for default |
| Judgment Author | HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Precedent Value | No precedential value; does not constitute binding or persuasive precedent |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure Code (Section 100; Second Appeal) |
| Ratio Decidendi | The appeal was dismissed solely on the ground of default, due to non-appearance of parties; there was no adjudication on merits or discussion of questions of law. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | When the matter was taken up on 04.04.2024, no representation; listed ‘for dismissal’ on 18.04.2024. On that day, none appeared again. Court found parties not interested, hence dismissed appeal for default. |
| Bench | Single Judge (RMT.TEEKAA RAMAN, J.) |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | Not binding as precedent; procedural disposal only. |
| Persuasive For | Not persuasive for other courts; no legal reasoning delivered. |
| Overrules | None |
| Distinguishes | None |
| Follows | None |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- The judgment does not address or decide any legal question; it simply records dismissal for default due to non-appearance.
- Dismissal for default under Section 100 CPC means the High Court does not rule on the merits of the second appeal.
- Such an order cannot be cited for any legal proposition or question of law.
- If restoration is needed, a separate application lies for setting aside dismissal for default under relevant provisions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court noted absence of representation by the appellants when the matter was previously listed for hearing.
- The registry was directed to list the matter under the caption ‘for dismissal.’
- On the scheduled date, with continued non-appearance from either side, the Court inferred disinterest in prosecuting the case.
- The Court proceeded to dismiss the second appeal for default, exercising its power to do so where neither party appears.
- There was no discussion of any substantive legal issue, question of law, or applicable precedents within the judgment.
Arguments by the Parties
- No arguments by Petitioner and Respondent, as neither side appeared or was represented at the scheduled hearings.
Factual Background
- The second appeal arose from a dispute adjudicated in O.S.No.908 of 1998, which was later challenged in A.S.No.99 of 2006.
- The appellants failed to appear before the High Court on scheduled hearings.
- The appeal was listed ‘for dismissal’ after prior non-appearance and was ultimately dismissed for default on 18.04.2024 due to continued absence.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment records dismissal of the second appeal under procedural provisions following non-appearance, consistent with Section 100 CPC and High Court Rules regarding default.
- No interpretation or analysis of substantive statutory provisions was undertaken.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
There is no dissenting or concurring opinion in this single-judge procedural order.
Procedural Innovations
None recorded or implemented in the judgment; routine application of procedure for dismissal for default.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Routine application of procedure for dismissal for default under Civil Procedure Code; does not establish or alter precedent.