← Library
Madras High CourtCRP/4282/2015dismissed for nonprosecution

Mrs. Madeshwari v. Mrs. Thangamani, W/O. Natesan

2016-12-16Honourable Mrs Justice Pushpa Sathyanarayana3 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.12.2016

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA C.R.P.(PD).Nos.4282 to 4284 of 2015 & M.P.No.1 of 2015 in each C.R.P.

Mrs.Madeshwari .. Petitioner in all C.R.Ps.

Vs.

Mrs.Thangamani .. Respondent in all C.R.Ps.

Civil Revision Petition No.4282 of 2015 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.08.2015 in I.A.No.278 of 2015 in O.S.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Harur, Dharmapuri.

Civil Revision Petition No.4283 of 2015 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.08.2015 in I.A.No.279 of 2015 in O.S.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Harur, Dharmapuri.

Civil Revision Petition No.4284 of 2015 filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the fair and decretal order dated 18.08.2015 in I.A.No.280 of 2015 in O.S.No.15 of 2013 on the file of the Sub-Court, Harur, Dharmapuri.

For petitioner : No appearance For respondent : Mr.P.Jagadeeswaran

ORDER

Earlier, learned counsel for the petitioner was absent for hearing on more than one occasion. On 07.12.2016, when the C.R.Ps. were taken up for hearing,

Mr.P.Muthusamy, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has given change of vakalat and has also filed a Memo to that effect before the Registry of this Court. Subsequently, when the C.R.Ps. were listed for hearing on 14.12.2016, there was no representation for the petitioner. Lastly, on 15.12.2016, when the C.R.Ps. were taken up for disposal, the erstwhile counsel Mr.P.Muthusamy again represented that he has filed the said Memo before the Registry. Hence, the Registry was directed to verify as to whether any Memo had been filed by the said counsel and to put up the same along with these C.R.Ps. and the Registry was also directed to print the name of the petitioner in the cause list. Accordingly, when the C.R.Ps.

are taken up for hearing today, which are listed under the caption "for dismissal", there was no representation for the petitioner, even though the name of the petitioner had been printed in the cause list. The said Memo (dated 08.12.2016) had been put up in the case bundle. There is no representation for the petitioner either through a counsel or in person. Hence, the C.R.Ps. are dismissed for non-prosecution. No costs. Consequently, M.Ps. are closed.

16.12.2016 cs Copy to The Subordinate Judge, Harur, Dharmapuri.

PUSHPA SATHYANARAYANA, J cs C.R.P.(PD).Nos.4282 to 4284 of of 2015 16.12.2016