The Court's decision was primarily based on the interpretation and application of Order 41 Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and the explanations provided by relevant case laws, emphasizing the limitations on the court's power to dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant.

JUDGMENT :

1. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment and order dated 27.1.2022 passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Surendranagar in Regular Civil Appeal No.12 of 2019 under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code, the appellant has filed present Appeal.

2. Heard learned Counsels appearing for the respective parties and perused the record and the impugned judgment and order of the lower Court.

3. From the record it appears that the appeal is decided ex-parte in absence of the learned Counsel appearing for the present appellant before the First Appellate Court and only on that ground the learned Appellate Court has decided the appeal.

4. At this stage, it is appropriate to take into account the issues framed by the learned Trial Court which read as under:

(1) whether the plnt. proves that the deft. on behalf of the firm, has purchased the goods on credit from the peti. during the period of dt. 13-5-98 to 6-8-98?

(2) whether the plnt. proves that an amount of Rs.4,55,86.17 P. are remained due and outstanding from the deft.?

(3) whether the peti.is entitled for interest ? If yes, then at what rate?

(4) whether the peti. is entitled for recovery of Rs.6,24,000/- from the deft.?

(5) what order and decree?

4.1 The learned Trial Court has given following answers to the above mentioned issues:

(1) Affirmative

(2) Affirmative

(3) Negative

(4) Partly affirmative

(5) As per final order

5. The learned Appellate Court has framed following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the learned trial court has grossly erred in concluding that the plaintiff has proved that the defendant on behalf of the firm has purchased the goods on credit during the period from 13/05/1998 to 06/08/1998?

2. Whether the learned trial court has grossly erred in concluding that the plaintiff has proved that the sum of Rs.4,55,866.12 P. is due from the defendant and the plaintiff is entitled to recover the same from the defendant? .

3. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit No.79/2000 dated 14/07/2017 is arbitrary, illegal and is against the settled principles of law?

4. Whether the impugned judgment and decree passed by the learned trial court requires any interference of this appellate Court?

5. What order?

5.1 The learned Appellate Court has given following answers to the above mentioned issues:

(1) In the negative

(2) In the negative

(3) In the negative

(4) In the negative

(5) As per final order

6. Thereafter, learned Appellate Court has passed the impugned order dated 27.1.2022. The operative portion of the order passed by the learned First Appellate Court reads thus:-

“ORDER

The Regular Civil Appeal is hereby rejected.

The judgment and decree dated 14/07/2017 passed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Surendranagar in Special Civil Suit No.79/2000 is hereby confirmed.

The registry is directed to send back the original record and proceedings of the Special Civil Suit No.79/2000 to the concerned court along with a copy of the judgment of this Regular Civil Appeal.

No order as to costs.

Decree be drawn accordingly.

Pronounced in the open Court on this 27th day of January 2022.”

7. At this stage, it is appropriate to take into account Order 41 Rule 17(1) of C.P.C., which reads as under:-

“R.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"

8. In the decision in case of Abdur Rahman and others vs. Athifa Begum and others reported in 1996(6) SCC 62, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"2.The qualified notice issued to the respondents indicated that this Court proposed to grant leave against the impugned judgment and order of the Appellate Court