Dismissed

Smt. Premwati v. Gupteshwar and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC5 Feb 2014SA/1332/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench held that the civil appeal under Section 100 CrPC preferred in 1999 must be dismissed for non-prosecution as the appellant failed to appear on two adjudication occasions despite sufficient notice, relying on Supreme Court precedents.

What did the court decide?

Appeal dismissed for non-prosecution due to the appellant's failure to appear on two occasions despite ample opportunity.

Smt. Premwati Vs Gupteshwar and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

! -^ ^f^o

¶3

IN THE HIGH CGURT OF JUDICAT0RE AT JABM>E>TJR( >)
TW

¶4

SECONE) APP^^ N©,_fj3Z^GF 1999,

¶5

SEGOI®^PPEAL_UNDERSSCTION 100 GF CIVIL PROCEDURE CO£E«

¶6

APPELLANT/ DEFENEl^NT No«3»

¶7

$ Smt^Prem^ati widow o£ Kavinath^ aged aboiat 52 years > Bralmte, Resldent of village Kumhall^ Tahsil Jag<aalpur, Distt^Bastar(NP) ^

¶8

-Versus-

¶9

RESPONDEHTS Nos.l to 4 plaintiffs<

¶10

: !• Giapfeeslwar son of late KavitiatM» aged aboiit 37 yearso

¶11

¶12

2^ Smt^ Siarajmaial wido^ of Late Kavinath^ aged about 27 years^ f

¶13

1. Jogeslwar son o£ late Kavinath^ aged aboat 23 years.

¶14

4» Pareshwar son of lafee Kavinathf aged about 23 years^

¶15

'^
^^t^
^s^"^^
.^s^" y

¶16

5o Btearat son of Motean» aged aboixt 37 years^

¶17

^ ^ ^ aefendant no^ 1 o

¶18

6» Sukmani <3aughter of NotoaHt aged abotit 52 years^

¶19

<.»»defendant mo»2.

¶20

All BrateiJtes, Resident of village 9y Kumhali^ Tahsil Jag<3a3pur, Dlstriot Ba8fear(KP)<

¶21

State of Ma^bya Pradesh, through the Collector, Bastar^ Jagdalpxir( MP) •

¶22

CLAIH V^LUEB THROUGHOITT AT te.35i/-. C0HRT FEES PAIDte.35/-»

¶23

.-i-^:"G%^[C-78

¶24

¶25

	^u^f ^rraTc^, ^TfRTH^, ^TOW WT^ ^ft i^^ w^ ^3 ? y<^<y	fa^Kriy ^r ^ 20 <^)
^ ^T^T^T'^ri^T ^TT 3'TT^T '^~P?1'^	^'^HW'Hft^T 3W^	^F)P:H~<?Tzft^T[R^i^f Fs^l <fa^t< '^'a^m<s^\|
	Single Bench: Hon/bl< 06-02-2014	Shri Justice Sanjiay K. Agrairal
	PrQced (1) The instant Code of Civil apt	iure ?eal under Section 100 of the iy 1908 was preferred in the
	year 1999. It i.s Court record is aval t	lUble be heard on admission. Lower lo
	(2) The appeal was	t^alled ^{out for hearing twice in}
	pre and post lunch	^es.sions, but no representation
	was made on behalf	of the appellant on both the
	occaslons to No.7/State is repre; learned Panel Lawyezl pros^	the appeal. Respondent
	(3) In Ajit Kumar	$i&gh ^{and oth^rs} v. chiranjibi
	Lal and others1 r^p^	rtad in AIR 2002 SC 1447 (2) ,
	the suprsme Court	clearly held that where the
	counsel for the ap	^ellant did not appear despite
	adequate opportunit^-	^ the only course open to the
	High Court was to	dismiss the appeal for non-
	prosecution or for	default. The judgment of the
	supreme Court reads	;as under:

¶26

^-'-"""-—^

¶27

XI-HC—78 /

¶28

3^[ ^W^A. ^rTWI^, 1^0(^y

WW-^; ^A 1?3^3J—^20

'STT^^Tf^ri^' ^T^TT 37T^T 9^'^	3?i?1?T ^ s y(t^< '^TTW^feT '-f^.	^) ^N^^^rn^*'4f^zt <r5t^i< '^'3ffm <OT<?T
k.	"7...... A pl provisions shows the procedure w^ ought to follow if it thinks fit	the appellant comprehend the the appellant or him" it will be to the respo^ empowers the Cou phrase "after f4 rule (2) also w3' date fixed or anl hearing may be 4 (which means ap does not appea called on for raalce an order dismissed. The as is coKimonly Order 41, Rule fortified from a by Act 104 of 19 19 of order 41 admission of under this sub- non-prosecution and (2) read wit

¶33

XI-HC—78

¶34

¶35

^v^ .^PTTc^. tNRTH'?. fa^l^y

¶36

^ ' 3^te........^^ ^r.^;

¶37

'STT^^T'f^ri^ ^ir 'sn^T 5FRi"SF	3TT??T^ ? ^gr^^y) ^TTWHfe? 3TTTO '^pri'<?pft^^rorf^i feTzt'^C5T? "^^^TRw ^w^
^	an appeal is sub-rule (2) 02^ rule (17) or rule (18) y the appellant R'
	this Court cannot tsroceed to hear the instant
	appeal on admissioil except to dismiss it for
	non-prosecution and
	dismissed. Sd/-
	, SanjayK.Agrawal Judge

Smt. Premwati v. Gupteshwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Premwati v. Gupteshwar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanesh Das Vs Radhamohan Das and Anr.

Ram Singh Thakur Vs Sabera Bai

Maniram and Another Vs Suhagdayee and Others

Smt.Chanda Bai Vs Keja Bai and Ors.

Gajanand Vs Lakhan Lal and Ors.

Ram Pyare Vs Subran and Ors.