T.R. Parthasarathy vs T. Anuradha
2021 Latest Caselaw 1688 Tel

Items No.5-8



      THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
                                  AND
        THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE B. VIJAYSEN REDDY


     F.C.A.Nos.192 of 2005, 196 of 2005, 176 of 2009 & 183 of 2009

COMMON JUDGMENT: (Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Hima Kohli)


1.      The matters are listed in the category of dismissal, as none had

appeared on behalf of the appellant/husband in F.C.A.Nos.192 of

2005, 196 of 2005 and 176 of 2009 nor were the appellants/wife and

the child in F.C.A.No.183 of 2009 were represented on the last date of

hearing. Today, Mr. E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel appears for the

appellants in F.C.A.No.183 of 2009 and the respondent in the other

three connected appeals. None is present on behalf of the

appellant/husband in F.C.A.Nos.192 of 2005, 196 of 2005 and 176 of

2009.

2. Mr. E. Phani Kumar, learned counsel submits that he had sent a

letter by registered post to his clients at the address given in the Memo

of parties for instructions. It has been duly served on them and proof

of acknowledgement has been received, but they have not contacted

him. He states that in such circumstances, he has no instructions in

the matter.

3. It appears that the appellant in F.C.A.Nos.192 of 2005, 196 of

2005 and 176 of 2009 is not interested in prosecuting the present

appeals, which are dismissed in default and for non-prosecution along

with the pending applications, if any.

4. In view of the submission made by learned counsel for the

appellants in F.C.A.No.183 of 2009, the present appeal is dismissed

along with the pending applications, if any, on the ground of lack of

any instructions received by the learned counsel.

______________________________ HIMA KOHLI, CJ

______________________________ B. VIJAYSEN REDDY, J

21.06.2021 JSU/PLN