SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1996 Supreme(SC) 1366

1996(6) Supreme 753
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.M. Punchhi and K.T. Thomas, JJ.
Abdur Rahman & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Athifa Begum & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 11460 of 1996
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 26562/95)
Decided on 30-8-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.S. Massey Verma and Shakil Ahmed Syed, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.S. Naganand and R.P. Wadhwani, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
High Court can dismiss the appeal in default in absence of appellants counsel but it can not advert to the merits of the case.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 41 Rule 17(1) Explanation-Non-appearance of Counsel for appellant at the hearing-High Court could dismiss appeal in default-It could not advert to merits of the case-High Court having transgressed the limit, impugned Judgment and Order was liable to be set aside-Matter to be disposed of afresh by High Court. (Para 2)

       

ORDER

Leave granted.

2. The qualified notice issued to the respondents indicated that this Court proposed to grant leave against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and on allowing the appeal, was expecting to remit the matter back to the file of the High Court for disposal of the matter on its merits. The respondents learned counsel has been confronted with the proposition that though the High Court could have dismissed the appeal in default in the absence of the appellants counsel, it could not have adverted to the merits of the case. Here, the High Court has recorded that all relevant aspects of the matter have been taken into account in order to hold that there was no available ground for interference with the decision of the Trial Court. This was an exercise with which the High Court should have been well-advised not to indulge in at the stage or Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. The Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC says that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits. The High Court having transgressed that limit, we have therefore no option but to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and put the matter back to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.

Appeal allowed.

*******

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top