Dismissed

Smt.Savitri Devi v. Mangal Singh andORS.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2014SA/18/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this second appeal under CPC S. 100, the High Court dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to appear for three hearings over nine years, holding that Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC mandates dismissal in such cases without proceeding on merits.

What did the court decide?

The appeal was dismissed for default as the appellant failed to appear for the hearing despite multiple occasions.

Smt.Savitri Devi Vs Mangal Singh andORS. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶3

Second Appeal No._ (_gl /2002. 'Snt, APPELLAST Sav-ttri Devl w/o Mahendra PLAINTIFF Nath Singb, Caste-Gond, age 56 years, Occupatl.on-Agriculture, r/o village Laadra, P.S. & Teh. Lundra (Dhaurpur) Distt. Surguja.C.o,

¶4

R S U S.
RESPOEIDENTS fcngal Slngh s/o Budhe Singh,
DEFBNDAHTS Caste-Gond, age 60 years, Occ.-
Agricalture, r/o vlllage Lundra.
P.S. &Teh. Lunara, Distt. Surguja.C.G.
Z.jirfiieshwar Prasad sj.ngh s/o Veersay
-fl^^ -^ age 25 years, Occupati.on-Servj.ee,
,\ r/o viliage Laadra, Teh. & P.is.
Lun^ra, Distt. Sarguja, C.G. |
....^^-
yThe State of caihattisgarh,
.^^^" thr oagh Collect or,,, Sar gu ja, C. G •
SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 C.P.C.

¶5

3'scT .^rpnc-Rr. t?tTRTrR. l°f<^iyy

-3ajfec—78

•'c^-A'i^

•Wit-Tr -aw^i

	3TO?T 173i • yiT;^	ti}
3n^r^iifipn?? •Ba]T3n^ig;ili'a7	^CTWt-HfCT 3:ICT'	i5irar<-fB;itini-fftifest'rfwRR ^? ajfira flR?i
	linale Bench: Hon'ble 17-02-201'	[Shri Jusfeic= Sanjas_K^Agra»al
	(1) The instant app	al under Section 100 of the
	code 01 Civil proces	re. 1908 was oreferred in the
	year 2002. It is an record i.s available.	admitted appeal. Lower Court
	(2i The aDoe.al was c pre and post lunch s was made on behalf occasions to orosecutl	falled out for' he.arina twice in pssion. e e ions. but no reoEesentatlon
•'n,	(3) Verv recentlv,	in Ghanshyaa Dass Gupta v.
	(^uestion as to wheth^ in deciding'.the appe^ anv representatlon ol considered and the Si	r . in (2012) 8 SCC 745, the jr ^{the High Court was}justified hl on merit.s in the absence of t-i bshalf of the appellant was lDreme Court held as under;

^~)

XJ-HC—78

;?Tmw5. Isi^iyy

^A l^ld-2-'. •qWc-Ti- -a?-<Tr^> "• •H^ 20

¶18

	SVRy fRB
311^1?il1?;ri?; 'B«1SD^I flBtffit;	?CTWBf?g WCT	qirar<'rqt;( IWTCTJii f:s^> )^K- ^sifimOT^i
«L<	'4. shrl Rake.sh! apDeanna su&iiiltted on t LnaT: justified in de4 slnce there wi behalf counsel oointed of the open to the co< DUT: tO d6Cl! the appeal on d view of the Ex 17(1) CPC.	tehalf ;iding the appeal on merits Dahiva. learned counsel aDpellant, the High Court was no reoresentation The learned appellant. out that the onlv coui'se srt was eitfier ciismiss dfault or ad;ourn tne same, e tt'is matter on raents, cjlanation to Order 41 Rule
	5. The learned of the judgn-ient of tl'ie behalf of	counsel appeanng on respondent supported the
	tJ'ie aopeal was up tor nnal n nine years,. a justified in even if there of the appellant dec w
--- . -..---!„	6. We are^ in consider ii?heth justified in dec in the abseiice behalf of the ap o	4r liding this case, called UDOU to the Hlgh Court was p-ding the appeal on merlts of any representation on t>ellant, in view of the be

¶19

¶20

3^?^{-^iww^,} wS\ww, ^cftwy.

¶21

Wf^T •g^]^--"........."-.-......./..'<.i.y...-;.............. ..SA.j.lie. t-

¶22

¶23

	an^rfw ('iigf?[^?T)
an^i.^iilyira' WT3IR¥I^KffW	wnwHteraii^r WlfeRtTqTTOfiffttZt^fRR ^aifirTsn^
	Explanatlon to Or4er 41 Kule 17 (1) CPC The said provision
	"17. the day fixe dav to which •fa.'alt, (1) Lhere on appear when or on any other the hearing may be ad]ourned, th$ appellant does no he appeal is called on for hearijng, the Court may take an order disruissed. that the apoeal be SKplacatif^i. Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construsd as empowering t4e court to dismiss the appeal on
	7. Rule 17(1) of dismissal of app^ default. The abl 'Order 41 deals with the :al for the appell.ant's svementloned provlsion; even without Exdlanation- if literallv read, would clearp.y indieate that if the appellant does no^ appear when the appeal is called for he+ring, the court has to dismiss the appea]

¶24

;{.(-HC—78

¶25

[. t$n'tMii^. ^cii+fy

¶26

•qTlf(TF-aw^; ' ' g-ft ft<t^ ..............^ ^

¶27

	snssr vsx i ^ar^a	^y)
<5TI^T?iT RFIR? W 3S^VWS!		^iraR^Tivvsiitf ^? •3J1tn a.t	s^tfezr K?!
	possibility of also there, if case on merit appear&d for th (4) In view of the thls court cannot d appeal on merits e appellant's default dismissed.	jallowing of t s; even if ^ appellant." labove settled roceed to dec ycei pcept to dismi and as such; the appellant	he appeal is nobody had legal po.siti ide the inst ss it for the appeal has a good	on, ant the is
-—--	i	sanja	Sd/- yK.AgrawaJ Judge

Smt.Savitri Devi v. Mangal Singh andORS.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Savitri Devi v. Mangal Singh andORS.

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

Smt. Premwati Vs Gupteshwar and Ors.

Smt.Chanda Bai Vs Keja Bai and Ors.

Gajanand Vs Lakhan Lal and Ors.

Tulsi Ram Vs Sher Singh and Ors.

Jagannath Vs Kurso and Others

Prabhu Das Vs Santosh Kumar and Others