Tamil Nadu

StateCommission

A/47/2021

V. Palanivelu, S/o Vadivelu, Koranad, Mayiladuthurai 609 001. - Complainant(s)

Versus

1.Joint 2 Sub Registrar, Cutchery Road, Mayiladuthurai.And 3 Others - Opp.Party(s)

Party in Person

28 Jun 2023

ORDER

IN THE TAMIL NADU STATE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, CHENNAI – 600 003.

BEFORE          Hon’ble Thiru. Justice R.SUBBIAH                           PRESIDENT

                      Thiru. R. VENKATESAPERUMAL                             MEMBER

 

F.A. No.47/2021

 

(Against the Order dt.12.02.2021 made in C.C. No.46/2018 on the file of

D.C.D.R.C., Nagapattinam)

DATED THE 28^TH DAY OF JUNE 2023

 

V. Palanivelu,

S/o. Mr. Vadivelu,

No.48, Thirumanjana Veethi,

Koranad,

Mayiladuthurai – 609 001.                                                  .. Appellant / Complainant.  

 

-Versus-

1. The Joint 2 Sub Registrar,

Mayiladuthurai.

 

2. The District Registrar (Administration),

Mayiladuthurai.

 

3. The Inspector General of Registration,

Santhome High Road,

Chennai.

 

4. The Secretary to Government,

Commercial Taxes and Registration Department.,

Secretariat,

Chennai – 600 009.                                                .. Respondents / Opposite parties.

 

Appellant / Complainant                                 : Party in person

Counsel for Respondents / Opposite parties  : M/s. K. Kumaran

 

                       This appeal coming up before us on 28.06.2023 for appearance of appellant and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal and this Commission made the following Order in open court:  

                                                                                             

Docket Order

 

           Respondent present and ready for arguments. No representation for appellant / party in person.  

This appeal is posted today for appearance of appellant / party in person and for arguments (in list) or for dismissal. 

When the matter was called at 10.30 A.M., the appellant/ party in person was not present.   Hence, passed over and called again at 01.00 P.M. still, there is no representation for the appellant/ party in person.  Hence, we are of the view that keeping the appeal pending is of no use as the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the case.

Hence, this appeal is dismissed for default.    No costs.

 

               

                Sd/-                                                                                              Sd/-                                                                        

R.VENKATESAPERUMAL                                                                        R.SUBBIAH                       

             MEMBER                                                                                     PRESIDENT