Dismissed

Maniram and Another v. Suhagdayee and Others

Chhattisgarh HC4 Feb 2014SA/231/2003

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A second civil appeal was dismissed for default due to non-prosecution. With no representation for appellants despite adjournment grants, the court applied Code of Civil Procedure principles to dismiss the appeal citing Supreme Court precedents on default dismissal.

What did the court decide?

The Second Civil Appeal was dismissed for default as appellants were unrepresented and no valid cause was pleaded for non-appearance.

Maniram and Another Vs Suhagdayee and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

¶2

Q
C&K

¶3

IN THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT AT BILASPUR

¶4

S.A.N0.

¶5

p13} /2003 (S3)

¶6

APPELLANTS j, Maniram, aged about 32(30) years AINTIFFS x/r /2) Sonadayee, aged about 52 (50) years \ r O>xG Both are Chandar by caste and @‘9 residents of village Bajawand, Tah. \xv-e 4W I”^’ Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) (72’ g. $Q‘we.v^g xk.a^ngf ?_ magep .f" V E R S U S W‘é RESPONDENTS 1,)» Suhagdayee, age about 72(60) years, DEFENDANTS /2)“ Bhagwan, agedabout 3O (28) years. Smt. Sulochana, age 24 (26) years. A11 are Chandar by caste and residents of village Bajawand, Tah. Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar (C.G.) The State of Chhattisgarh through D1str1ct Collector Bastar ,Jagdalpur (CG) SECOND CIVIL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 READ, WITH ORDER 42 RULE 1 AND ORDER 41 RULE CODE OE/ I’M/“OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 VALUED %T RS. 1800] - (ACCORDINGLY COURT FEE OF RS. 180.00 IS AFFIXED, ASI‘ VALUED AND AFFIXED IN LEARNED TRIAL COURT AND FIRST APPELLATE COURT).

1 \

x .J’“

,‘^{s/ymz‘zjzwg} mm giw

¶11

swam (W)

¶12

mmm mmm	Wmm	WW fgé1m $aimm
	Sinqle Bench: Hon’ble ShJ 04—02—2014 (1) The instant appeal Code of Civil Procedure year 2003. It is to be Court record is availab] (2) The appeal was call pre and post lunch sess ‘was made on behalf of occa51ons No.4/State to prosecute 1s represen Agrawal, learned Panel I	V ed out for hearing twice in ions, but no representation the appellants on both the appeal. Respondent :ed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar :i Justice Sanjay K; Agrawal under Section 100 of the 1908 was preferred in the heard on admission. Lower e. I the lawyer.
	(3) A ( In Ajit Kumar Sing Lalrand others2 the that where the counsel appear despite adequa course open to the Hiw	<br>for the appellant did not the h and others v. Chiranjibi mpreme Court clearly held te opportunity, only 1 Court was to dismiss the
	appeal for non—prosecu [judgment of the Supreme	tion or for default. The Court reads as under:
mm	_ I‘7. ..... A pla provisions shows t 1 AIR 2002 SC 14¢7 (2) w,W—Fs/43:sl2mz¢ ^an»	in reading of th hat Rule ll deals with e

¶13

¶14

. $74—25;. 2W3 ' mm V1 20

¶15

mm m (W)

¶16

WWW wmm WWW WM ^§¢W " wmsm
the procedure which the Appellate Court to the respond _‘empowers the Court if it thinks fit t the appellant o comprehend the cc phrase "after fixi the appellant or h him" it will be n rule (2) also whic ought to follow before ordering notice ants ^. Sub-rule (1) to dismiss the appeal o to do after hearing r his pleader. To rrect import of the ng a day for hearing Ls pleader and hearing ecessary to read sub— h says that if on the : under this sub-rL non-prosecution or as is commonly ca Orderl4l, Rule ll fortified from a ] and (2) read with by Act 104 of 1976 19 of Order 41 w} admission of a}: default. It says, an appeal is disrr sub—rule (2) \or ru the appellant may ( Court for the appeal, and, where was prevented by from appearingw w WWW,mm—Fsm—a/zotz—qom 1e is dismissal for default lled. This import of (1) and (2) is also aerusal of Rule l7(1)> the explanation, ^added and provision of Rule Lich provides for re— peal dismissed for‘ 'Lnter alia, that where issed under Rule 11, le 1(17) or rule (l8), apply to the Appellate re~admission of the it is proved that he any sufficient cause hear:amen ’apaeal, was i <br>date fixed or any )ther day to which the hearing may be ad: ourned, the appellant (which means appellant or his pleader) does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order, that the appeal ,be dismissed. The dismissal postulated

WWW
wmm
WWW
WM ^§¢W
"
wmsm

the
procedure
which
the
Appellate
Court
to
the
respond
_‘empowers
the
Court
if
it
thinks
fit
t
the
appellant
o
comprehend
the
cc
phrase
"after
fixi
the
appellant
or
h
him"
it
will
be
n
rule
(2)
also
whic
ought
to
follow
before
ordering
notice
ants ^.
Sub-rule
(1)
to
dismiss
the
appeal
o
to
do
after
hearing
r
his
pleader.
To
rrect
import
of
the
ng
a
day
for
hearing
Ls
pleader
and
hearing
ecessary
to
read
sub—
h
says
that
if
on
the
:
under
this
sub-rL
non-prosecution
or
as
is
commonly
ca
Orderl4l,
Rule
ll
fortified
from
a
]
and
(2)
read
with
by Act
104
of
1976
19
of
Order
41
w}
admission
of
a}:
default.
It
says,
an
appeal
is
disrr
sub—rule
(2)
\or
ru
the
appellant
may
(
Court
for
the
appeal,
and,
where
was
prevented
by
from
appearingw w
WWW,mm—Fsm—a/zotz—qom
1e
is
dismissal
for
default
lled.
This
import
of
(1)
and
(2)
is
also
aerusal
of
Rule
l7(1)>
the
explanation, ^added
and provision
of
Rule
Lich
provides
for
re—
peal
dismissed
for‘
'Lnter
alia,
that
where
issed
under
Rule
11,
le
1(17)
or
rule
(l8),
apply to
the
Appellate
re~admission
of
the
it
is
proved
that
he
any
sufficient
cause
hear:amen
’apaeal,
was
i
<br>date
fixed
or
any
)ther
day
to
which
the
hearing
may
be
ad: ourned,
the
appellant
(which
means
appellant
or
his
pleader)
does
not
appear
when
the
appeal
is
called
on
for
hearing,
the
Court
may
make
an
order,
that
the
appeal
,be
dismissed.
The
dismissal
postulated

¶17

znuF"EEqhE§€Ab$fi§Z"2f%é%m1w120.

¶18

‘mm (14W)

¶19

WWW WWW		WWW	WW wW §Hffaw3né¥1
	/’	called on for hea re—admit the appea‘ costs or otherwise 8. There can .be m of Order 41, VCPC. to the High Court Court erroneously appeal for non- absence 'of advocat The High COurt considered the me dismiss the Second Amt. v. Munshi Lal 788)]. The same Vi Abdur Rahman & Ors Ors. [1996 (6) SCC	ring the Court shall on such terms as to as it thinks fit. p The only course open doubt that the High interpreted Rule 11(1) was to dismiss the ‘prosecution in the e for the appellants. ought not to have tits of the case to Appeal. [See Rafiq & & Anr. (1981 (20) SCC ew was reiterated in . 62].” v. Athifa Begum &
Gépal WWW,	#this appea prose W—WA (4)	Court cannot proC l on admission exce cution and as such, H/zou—so,ouo. In View of the abov	J Sdl— a"7 Judge eed hear the instant pt to dismiss it for hens the appeal is dismissed. f i/i/ ^v e settled legal position, to Smjay ^{K, Agrawa!}

Maniram and Another v. Suhagdayee and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maniram and Another v. Suhagdayee and Others

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

Thanu Ram Sahu and Ors. Vs State of C.G. and Ors.

Bhagwatin Bai and Ors. Vs Nathuram and Anr.

Mahendra Kumar Agrawal Vs Smt. Kamla Bai Agrawal and Ors.

Dhanesh Das Vs Radhamohan Das and Anr.

Ram Singh Thakur Vs Sabera Bai

Awdhesh and Another Vs Somar Sai and Others