Back
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
DALAL, J.
Mul Chand - Appellant
Versus
Piare Lal & Anr. - Respondent
Decided On : 16-01-1929
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J. - The lower Appellate Court was mistaken in refusing jurisdiction. The suit of the plaintiff applicant was really dismissed under Order IX, Rule 8, whatever the trial Court may have thought. The suit came up for hearing on the 16th of February, 1928, when it was adjourned to the 16th of March. At that time there was no order that the plaintiff was granted time to produce evidence, or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act necessary for the further progress of the suit. 16th March was a holiday and the case was taken up on 17th March. The plaintiff was not present on that date also and the suit ought to have been dismissed in the presence of the defendant under Order IX, Rule 8. Instead of doing so, the Court granted time to the defendant to produce his witnesses and on 19th March heard the witnesses of the defendant again in the absence of the plaintiff. When the plaintiff is persistently absent, the Court cannot decide a suit on the merits. To pass a decree under Order XVII, Rule 3 there must be circumstances which would bring the case under the provisions of that rule. In the present case all that is known is that the plaintiff was absent. There is no order granting him time to produce evidence or to perform any act. Under the circumstances though the decree purports to have been passed under Order XVII, Rule 3 it was really one under Order IX, Rule 8 and the lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear the appeal from an order refusing to restore the suit. I set aside the decree of the lower Appellate Court and direct it to try Miscellaneous Appeal No. 21 of 1928 on the merits. Costs here and hitherto shall abide the result.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
