The Madras High Court held that an appeal may be dismissed if the appellant, despite specific directions and interim orders, fails to take any steps to serve notice on the respondent for an extended period. It reaffirms the court’s discretion to prevent indefinite pendency in civil appeals.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CMSA/39/2011 of K.BASKAR Vs KRISHNAVENI |
| CNR | HCMA010125942011 |
| Decision Date | 03.02.2021 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | S.M. Subramaniam |
| Court | Madras High Court |
| Bench | Single Judge |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court will not keep an appeal pending indefinitely where the appellant fails to comply with directions to serve notice despite private notice being permitted and an interim stay having been granted on condition of deposit. Non-service of notice for nine years constituted non-prosecution and warranted dismissal of the appeal. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The appellant filed a second appeal against a matrimonial decree. The court on 02.08.2011 directed notice and granted interim stay on deposit of ₹10,000. The appellant did not serve notice—personal or private—for about nine years, and the notice sent returned “door locked.” |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Failure to serve notice—even when private notice is permitted and an interim stay is granted—can lead to dismissal for non-prosecution.
- The court will not keep an appeal pending for an unspecified period purely on account of non-compliance with service directions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The court issued a notice-returnable direction and permitted private notice, coupled with an interim stay on condition of depositing 50% of the decree amount.
- The appellant made no attempt, for approximately nine years, to serve notice by any means.
- Notice sent through official channels was returned “door locked,” and no follow-up steps were taken.
- The High Court exercised its discretion under inherent powers to prevent indefinite pendency and dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution.
Factual Background
The appellant challenged a matrimonial decree via Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal in 2011. On 02.08.2011, the High Court ordered notice to the respondent, allowed private service, and granted an interim stay upon deposit of ₹10,000. Despite these directions, the appellant neither served the respondent nor pursued any alternative means of service for around nine years, leading to dismissal of the appeal on grounds of non-prosecution.