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

1951 Supreme(Raj) 143

SHARMA
Ramdhan – Appellant
Versus
Gobindram – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.P. Agrawal, for Applicant; R.C. Sharma, for Respondent

Sharma, J.—This is an application by one Ramdhan for restoration of an application for revision, which was dismissed for default of the applicant. At first objection was taken by the learned counsel for the opposite party that such an application can not be restored either under Order 9 or sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure and a ruling of Madras High Court, reported A. Ramamurthi Iyer and others vs. T.A. Meenakshisundurammal and another (A.I.R. 1945 Madras P. 103) was cited in support of that view. A single judge of that court held that the dismissal of a case for default of appearance is as much a final order as a dismissal on the merits; and the court can not set aside its own order unless it has jurisdiction to do so. In the case of suits and appeals the power exists under O. 9, R. 9 and O. 41, R. 19, Code of Civil Procedure, to set aside dismissals of suits and appeals in default of appearance; but those provisions do not apply to civil revision petitions and as there is no corresponding provision relating to civil revision petitions the court has no jurisdiction to restore to the file civil revision petitions which have been dismissed for default of appearance. The petit



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 telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top