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

1956 Supreme(All) 356

M. C. DESAI
Radhey Shyam – Appellant
Versus
Ghasita – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Sri Satyendra Nath Verma, For the Appellant /

JUDGMENT

M.C. Desai, J. - On an adjourned date the Appellant, who was the Plaintiff in a suit for injunction, was absent and the trial court dismissed the suit. It mentioned that the claim of the Appellant had been denied by the Defendant Respondent, that the Appellant had tailed to produce any evidence to substantiate his claim and that consequently it was dismissed "On merits u/O. XVII R. 3 CPC". The Appellant instead of applying for restoration of the suit u/O. IX went up in appeal and the appellate court dismissed the appeal, being of the view that the order of the trial court was correct.

2. What I could understand from the argument advanced on behalf of the Appellant is that the trial court should have dismissed the suit u/O. IX and not "on merits u/O. XVII R. 3 CPC". No appeal lies against an order dismissing a suit in default but when a suit is dismissed on merits, whether u/O. XVII, R. 2 or u/R. 3, an appeal does lie. If the order of dismissal passed by the trial court was correctly u/R.3 and was, therefore, appealable the Appellant could not succeed because then he could not claim that the dismissal should have been u/O. IX, and the suit would have been found rightly dismis

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