Dismissed

Tulsi Ram v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC6 Feb 2014SA/324/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Second Appeal No. 3/7/2002 was dismissed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh for non-appearance of the appellant after notice and opportunity was afforded. The court relied on Supreme Court precedents holding that dismissal for default is the only course when counsel fails to appear despite due notice.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal was dismissed under Rule 11 for non-appearance after notice and opportunity were given.

Tulsi Ram Vs Sher Singh and Ors. — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Chhattisgarh HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SECOND APPEAL N0. ‘3 $7 /2002

¶2

Appellant

¶3

Versus

¶4

Tulsi Ram S/o Gajadhar, aged about
"
A 52 years R/o Village Sm‘bhoka, Tehsil
Manendragarh, Dist : Korea — (C.G.)
g"
I
1. Sher Smgh S/o Heeralal aged about 38 years
i By caste Gond R/o V111age Surbhoka Tehs11
Manendragarh Dlst Korea
Batsiya Bai Widow of Salik Ram aged about 70
i
years R/o Village Surbhoka, Tehsil
Manendragarh, Dist : Korea
----Defendant No. 1--—-
Manmati D/o Salik Ram W/o Sundar Singh,
aged about 50 years, R/o Shanti Nagar,
Rajnagar Colliery, Sohagpur, Dist : Shahdol i
(M.P.)
----Defendant No‘2——--
Sampat Kumar S/o Gajadhar, aged about 58
years, R/o Village Surbhoka, Tehsil
Manendragarh, Dist : Korea
----Defendant No 3—---
5‘ State of MP (Now state of chhattisgarh)
i
through Collector Ambikapur Dist Surguja

¶5

SECOND APPEAL U/S 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCED
/

¶6

Xl-HC^~78

¶7

mam. warm? W

¶8

. w 111 40

rm‘ar^‘W

¢‘ (

m^W‘i'W)

I mwm mmfa1f1=mmr&tr@€fm aznwéwww a: wan arm ginale Bench: Han’bie Shri Justice 3mia§^K. Agrawai $?— £-2$14 {1} Tha .umtant ag‘gaal under Sectian 10B af the ’11 Cmia cf C _ Pracgmre; 19W was praférmz thé D 0 2 I1: i$ tr: bé héard an admissign. {:2} Tne appéa was alled mu: far hegaritig twituz in gré and pcast lunch sewians, but m3 representatimi was made an be‘mlf af thé appellant an beth the eceasiene to erasecu e the atpeai. §3§ In Ajit Eumar s'ngh and athers v. ChiranjiEyi Lel ant-l ethersi Ape ted in MR 2332 5E 144? §2§ i the Supreme Ceurt learly helci that where the aeuneel fer the app llant did not appear cieexgite atiequete eppertunity the enly eeuree Gpen t0 the Hlgn Cni‘t was te eLSmlgs the agpeal fez nem— praeecutian er fat efault. The judgment er the Supreme taut-t reae‘iS S under:

¶13

XI‘HC—‘78

¶14

m‘w.^”mm? W£

¶15

am'é'ir W

¶16

5W^92L1/0?/

¶17

¶18

m m “Wig?”
mmm aznmmm ¥ mmfwanwam%q%w; $aTFcmar<W
grmrlsmns ^am $ that Rule 11 deals with the prccetiuré .«I‘szich thQ Appallata caurt might to fall w béfaré Qrdéring natiCQ ta the res one‘ents. Sub-rule (1) empewere the i: 'uif ta dismiee the ep‘geal if it thinks; f t so te dc after hearixlg the epgellant er his gleee‘er. Te eemprehenel th aerreet imgert ef the phrase "after fixing a day fer hearing the appellant r his pleaeer and hearing him“ it will e neeeeeary to b- rule (2) else Hich eave th“ i h [[l ead eE: H1 t:- :5 m '‘1 H l'r' fr [lm .. f‘u ,l date fixed et- hy ethel uaj ta w; ._ h hea_lng may be edguutned, the appellatt (whieh means pellant er his pleader) I “'i . , . , , . A ‘plain reamiing 3f the
dees mt app at whet: the appeal i3 eelled en fer hearing, the Ceert may make an erde that the appeel be tiiemiseed. T digmiesal p qtuletec‘; under thie Srule ie elem eel fer” hen—preeecuti or dismissal fer elefatlt es i5 cammenly ealled. Thie impe' ef Greer 41; Rul lli‘l) ah (2) i 13 fertified tra a perusal ef Rule l‘Hl‘; and (2} reed w th the eghlauewnn aah {j by Act 3.04 or whieh hieVidee er re— Ehb and ere 131m; 43f Pale lg ef Ede; t2 h u‘— o m
admlesieh Qf aepeal diemieSed ft eefault It gaye, lPter elm, that where

'KI—HC—-78

£3

WW. Wag. W

5‘9 3QH lo‘L. amear^'m “i Z“

¶23

m m^(W)

¶24

a§man w ammmas	Eamna%aa€w	I Wmwawrrm‘ffwm mmarw
l	gab—11mg (2) <3 thé appalMnt taurt far 12h agapeai: and, W u was prewntad fram agpéarin Asaliad an im ré—axt2m1't the m. the: 3: Them can Caur" errcnea g rt C BM af arder 41 ta ha figh apkixeai fa- abgenaé taf adv ma mgn (”u mngidéraé thé tiismiss thé SE imr v. §§un5hi m8) . The 3am “War Rahman & Qr$. {l§§§ (6} t gé'; In View 0f the this tic-art tannat apgaaal an. atlm s m §r03ecutian anal a5 5t [Al HI! p4,. a1: 3mm? 5:	rule ('7) m:- rulé (13:1, a1; awly ta thé Epgaallaté w— ti Hemn 0f the na‘ré ix. 1:: bravad that hé by am‘y' auLfJ. ant caLme when thé appeal was maxing thg tawt Shall naal an $1.1m Lerma aa m rze (ls .Lt Jun}; Eli; e :10 drzrubr Tbzat ‘rhe i-Tigh ly mtérbremii Rum lix ‘1 .- ? . ma anlv cuume apen uit a3 Lu htlmuiw ti-‘z:='- o Dmgacuflon in the Lata far the ap'pé‘ilaratg. t aught mt ta tat-a maxim Gf the :aae ta 'cnd Appaalg [Set Rafiq & Lal ’ Em'r. {1931 x28} C vi w waS *‘eitexa eci i FIS is. Athif; Ea‘ux ‘uC 2}.“ F3” um LL abQVE‘V settlad legal §1a5itiang précged ta haar thé 113t§it Excegt tc: tiismigs it far 31ml— u1h, thé appéal i3 :jigmissad. sw- Sanjay ^{K- Agrawal} Judge i$mis$éd umier Pnha 11

Tulsi Ram v. Sher Singh and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tulsi Ram v. Sher Singh 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

Smt. Premwati Vs Gupteshwar and Ors.

Smt.Chanda Bai Vs Keja Bai and Ors.

Gajanand Vs Lakhan Lal and Ors.

Smt.Savitri Devi Vs Mangal Singh andORS.

Jagannath Vs Kurso and Others

Prabhu Das Vs Santosh Kumar and Others