Dismissed

Bhagwatin Bai and Ors. v. Nathuram and Anr.

Chhattisgarh HC3 Feb 2014SA/645/2000

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Where an appellant fails to appear before the High Court despite adequate opportunity having been provided, the proper course of action under Section 116 of the CPC and Order 41 Rule 11 CPC is to dismiss the appeal. The Court referred to settled Supreme Court precedents establishing that the High Court has no discretion to grant an extension of time; it must dismiss the appeal.

What the court decided

AI extract

WWW ’mmm	WWW	wwwiff‘swjm swimwém
	Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri 04-02-2014	^'JusticeSanjay K. Agrawal
	(1) The instant appeal Code of Civil Procedure,	under Section IOO of the 1908 was preferred in the 1eard
	year 2000. It is to be Court record is available	on admission. Lower .
	(2) The appeal was calle pre and post lunch sessiO was 'made on behalf of t occasions to prosecute No.2/State is represente learned Panel Lawyer. '	d out for hearing twice in ns, but no representation he appellants on both the the appeal. Respondent d by Shri Akhil Agrawal,
	Lal and othersl, the S that where the counsel '(3) In Ajit Kumar/Singh	reme Court clearly held or the appellant did not and others v. Chiranjibi
	appear despite adequate	opportunity, the only
	course open to the High	Court was to dismiss the
	appeal for non—prosecut; .judgment of the Supreme C	on or for default; The, Durt reads as underz'
	7/“7. <br>A' provisions shows' the ‘ up. 2002 sc 1447 (2) plair	' reading of the X .t Rule 11 dealsxwith.W

WWW
’mmm

WWW

wwwiff‘swjm
swimwém

Single Bench:
Hon’ble Shri
04-02-2014

^'JusticeSanjay K.
Agrawal

(1)
The
instant
appeal
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,

under
Section
IOO
of
the
1908
was
preferred
in
the
1eard

year
2000.
It
is
to
be

Court
record
is
available

on
admission.
Lower
.

(2)
The
appeal
was
calle
pre
and
post
lunch
sessiO
was
'made
on
behalf
of
t
occasions
to
prosecute
No.2/State
is
represente
learned Panel
Lawyer.
'

d
out
for
hearing
twice
in
ns,
but
no
representation
he
appellants
on
both
the
the
appeal.
Respondent
d
by
Shri
Akhil
Agrawal,

Lal
and
othersl,
the
S
that
where
the
counsel
'(3)
In
Ajit
Kumar/Singh

reme
Court
clearly
held
or
the
appellant
did
not
and
others
v.
Chiranjibi

appear
despite
adequate

opportunity,
the
only

course
open
to
the
High

Court
was
to
dismiss
the

appeal
for
non—prosecut;
.judgment
of
the
Supreme
C

on
or
for
default;
The,
Durt
reads
as
underz'

7/“7.
<br>A'
provisions
shows'
the
‘
up. 2002 sc
1447
(2)
plair

'
reading
of
the
X
.t
Rule
11
dealsxwith.W

tvmau%aa&$ , $mh%wmm% & h%m aKa‘Ewm m
the procedure which .the Appellate Court ought to follow before ordering notice to the' empowers the Court to dismiss the appeal to do after hearing his pleader. To ect import of the pleader and hearing him" it will be nezessary to read sub— rule‘(2) also which date fixed or any other day to which the hearing may be adjcurned, the appellant (which means appel ant or his pleader) en the called on ,for hea ing, ' is dismissal for smissal for default This import of ) and. (2) is also fortified from a p rusal of Rule 17(1) and (2) by Act 104 of l976> 19 of Order '41 wh'ch provides for re— admission of app a_l default sed under Rule 11 (17) or rule (18) Court for the where was prevented. by appearing if it thinks fit sq. the appellant or comprehend the corr phrase "after fixirg a day for hearing the appellant or his says that if on the 'non—prosecution or i as is- commonly cal ed. Order 41, Rule ll 1 appeal is the Court may appeal be postulated read'with he explanation added d provision of Rule dismissed for It says, 1 ter alia, that where (2) or rul “appeal, and, frOm b is proved that he y sufficient qause -appea1 ‘was t at the smissal ran appeal is dismi sub rule the appellant may a ply to the Appellate r —admission of the wh n the respondents. Sub—rule (1) h does not appear make an order dismissed. The under this suberu e , 't n n

tvmau%aa&$ ,
$mh%wmm%
&
h%m
aKa‘Ewm
m

the
procedure
which
.the
Appellate
Court
ought
to
follow
before
ordering
notice
to
the'
empowers
the
Court
to
dismiss
the
appeal
to
do
after
hearing
his
pleader.
To
ect
import
of
the
pleader
and
hearing
him"
it
will
be
nezessary
to
read
sub—
rule‘(2)
also
which
date
fixed
or
any
other
day
to
which
the
hearing
may
be
adjcurned,
the
appellant
(which
means
appel
ant
or
his
pleader)
en
the
called
on
,for
hea
ing,
'
is
dismissal
for
smissal
for
default
This
import
of
)
and.
(2)
is
also
fortified
from
a
p
rusal
of
Rule
17(1)
and
(2)
by
Act
104
of
l976>
19
of
Order
'41
wh'ch
provides
for
re—
admission
of
app
a_l
default
sed
under
Rule
11
(17)
or
rule
(18)
Court
for
the
where
was
prevented.
by
appearing
if
it
thinks
fit
sq.
the
appellant
or
comprehend
the
corr
phrase
"after
fixirg
a
day
for
hearing
the
appellant
or
his
says
that
if
on
the
'non—prosecution
or
i
as
is-
commonly
cal
ed.
Order
41,
Rule
ll
1
appeal
is
the
Court
may
appeal
be
postulated
read'with
he
explanation
added
d provision
of
Rule
dismissed
for
It
says,
1
ter
alia,
that
where
(2)
or
rul
“appeal,
and,
frOm
b
is
proved
that
he
y
sufficient
qause
-appea1
‘was
t
at
the
smissal
ran
appeal
is
dismi
sub
rule
the
appellant
may
a
ply
to
the
Appellate
r
—admission
of
the
wh
n
the
respondents.
Sub—rule
(1)
h
does
not
appear
make
an
order
dismissed.
The
under
this
suberu
e
,
't
n
n

	mmm	WW‘§W vanim W m
	called on fr e re-admit the apea csts or otherwie o har pl o s	g the ourt shall on such terms to s it thinks fit. in C as a
Gopal	8. There can be n- Court erroousy of Or l, PC. to the Hgh Court appl forr non- ance of advocat The Hig Court conided the me dismiss h Sed nr v. uns Lal 788)]. The am‘v Abdur Rm Or Ors 1996 ( sc ~ e f he abp h. rt ann pe ppeal on missio exc prosecutin an as s o d uch, c nel i der 4 C i ea p bse e h ser l te con A. Mhi seie aharr & s . [ 6) c (4)In viw o t v tis Cou cot roc a adn e	doubt that the High terpreted Rule 11(l) The only course open was to dismiss the secution in the for the appellants. ught not to have its of the case to Appeal. [See Raiq & Anr. (1981 (20) SCC w ws reiterated in V. Athifa Begum & 2]." settled lega position, d o hear t instant to dismiss it for non— he appeal is dismissed. t Sd/- Sanjay K. Agrawal v ‘ Judge n ro : o f & a 3 e l a t he pt

mmm

WW‘§W
vanim
W
m

called
on
fr
e
re-admit
the
apea
csts
or
otherwie
o
har
pl
o
s

g
the
ourt
shall
on
such
terms
to
s
it
thinks
fit.
in
C
as
a

Gopal

8.
There
can
be
n-
Court
erroousy
of
Or
l,
PC.
to
the
Hgh
Court
appl
forr
non-
ance
of
advocat
The
Hig
Court
conided
the
me
dismiss
h
Sed
nr
v.
uns
Lal
788)].
The
am‘v
Abdur
Rm
Or
Ors
1996
(
sc
~
e
f
he
abp
h.
rt
ann
pe
ppeal
on
missio
exc
prosecutin
an
as
s
o
d
uch,
c
nel
i
der
4
C
i
ea
p
bse
e
h
ser
l
te
con
A.
Mhi
seie
aharr
&
s
.
[
6)
c
(4)In
viw
o
t
v
tis
Cou
cot
roc
a
adn
e

doubt
that
the
High
terpreted
Rule
11(l)
The
only
course
open
was
to
dismiss
the
secution
in
the
for
the
appellants.
ught
not
to
have
its
of
the
case
to
Appeal.
[See
Raiq
&
Anr.
(1981
(20)
SCC
w
ws
reiterated
in
V.
Athifa
Begum
&
2]."
settled
lega
position,
d
o
hear
t
instant
to
dismiss
it
for
non—
he
appeal
is
dismissed.
t
Sd/-
Sanjay K. Agrawal
v
‘
Judge
n
ro
:
o
f
&

a
3
e
l
a
t
he
pt

Bhagwatin Bai and Ors. v. Nathuram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhagwatin Bai and Ors. v. Nathuram and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dholi Bai and Ors. Vs Premlal and Ors.

Dhanajiram and Ors. Vs Praveen Kumar and Ors.

Shyamlal and Anr. Vs Dulorin Bai and Ors.

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

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

Smt.Bholi Bai Vs Basant and Others