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

2023 Supreme(SC) 1799

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
Benny D’Souza and Others – Appellants
Versus
Melwin D’Souza and Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 7798 of 2023 [SLP (C) No. 23809 of 2023]
Decided On : 24-11-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : S.N. Bhat, D.P. Chaturvedi, Tarun Kumar Thakur, Parvati Bhat, Anuradha Mutatkar
For the Respondents: G. Arudhra Rao, Aniruddha Purushotham, Tansi Fotedar, Rohan Andrew Naik, Mohan Prasad Gupta, Kumar Abhishek, Sathvik M.C.

An appeal cannot be dismissed on merits if the appellant is not represented; dismissal must be for non-prosecution as per CPC Order XLI Rule 17.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLI Rule 17 - Dismissal of appeal for appellant’s default - Appellants’ appeal was dismissed on merits despite their absence due to bereavement of counsel - Court held that dismissal on merits contradicts provisions of the CPC, specifically the Explanation to Rule 17. (Paras 5-7)

(B) Appeal - The court emphasized that an appeal should only be dismissed for non-prosecution if the appellant is absent, not on merits. (Paras 6-7)

Facts of the case:
The appellants, plaintiffs in RSA No. 196/2022, were not represented due to the senior counsel’s bereavement. The High Court dismissed their appeal on merits instead of for non-prosecution.

Findings of Court:
The court found the dismissal on merits to be contrary to the CPC provisions, leading to the restoration of the appeal.

Issues: The main issue was whether the High Court could dismiss the appeal on merits despite the appellants' absence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the dismissal of the appeal on merits was not permissible under Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, which allows dismissal only for non-prosecution.

Result: The appeal is allowed; the impugned order is set aside, and the RSA No. 196/2022 is restored.

ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. The appellants herein are the plaintiffs who were the appellant in RSA No. 196/2022. The only grievance of the appellants herein is with regard to the dismissal of the said appeal vide order dated 26.09.2023 on merits although the appellants were not represented inasmuch as there was no counsel who appeared for the appellants and the junior counsel for the appellants submitted that the senior counsel engaged in the matter, was not available as his cousin had passed away. Therefore, on account of a bereavement in the family of the arguing counsel there was no representation on behalf of the appellants before the High Court.

3. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that the High Court could have dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution in terms of the order XLI Rule 17 CPC and particularly the Explanation thereto instead of dismissing the appeal on merits by stating that no substantial question of law was made out. Therefore, the learned senior counsel submitted that the impugned judgment may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the High Court for consideration on the merits of the appeal.

4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned judgment and contended that the appellants consistently failed to appear before the High Court and therefore, the High Court had no option but to pass the impugned judgment and that there is no merit in the appeal.

5. Having heard learned senior counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the respondents, at the outset, we extract Order XLI Rule 17 of the CPC which reads as under:

    “17. Dismissal of appeal for appellant’s default:

    (1) Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed.

    Explanation - Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits.”

6. The Explanation categorically states that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing it can only be dismissed for non-prosecution and not on merits.

7. However, the impugned judgment is a dismissal of the appeal on merits which is contrary to the aforesaid provisions and particularly the Explanation thereto. On that short ground alone the appeal is allowed the impugned order is set aside.

8. The RSA No. 196/2022 is restored on the file of the High Court.

9. The parties are at liberty to advance arguments on the merits of the case.

10. All contentions are left open.

11. The appeal is allowed and disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs.

12. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

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