Case Note & Summary
The Review Application No. 207 of 2025 was filed in the High Court of Judicature at Madras seeking to review an order dated 13-08-2025 passed in C.M.A. No. 1638 of 2025. The applicant, M/s. ABCD Technology, represented by M. Bharat Chandran, contended that their counsel had filed a Vakalath but did not appear during the hearing, thus requesting another opportunity. The court noted that the plaintiff was duly served and listed in the cause list but chose not to appear. The court reasoned that a party who fails to appear cannot subsequently seek a review of the order based on that absence. Consequently, the court dismissed the review application, stating that the grounds presented did not warrant the exercise of review jurisdiction. No costs were awarded. The judgment was delivered by Justices S.M. Subramaniam and Hemant Chandangoudar on 20-08-2026.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Application - Grounds for Review - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 47 Rules 1 & 2 - The court held that the absence of counsel during the hearing does not constitute a valid ground for review, as the plaintiff was duly served and failed to appear. The review application was dismissed as not maintainable (Paras 2-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the absence of counsel during the hearing constitutes a valid ground for reviewing the order.
Final Decision
The Review Application was dismissed as not maintainable due to the absence of the applicant's counsel during the hearing.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- grounds for review
- appearance before court
