This judgment defines the scope of a Civil Appellate Court\'s power to dismiss an appeal for default under Order 41 Rule 2 CPC when the appellant does not appear.
Dismissed appeal for default of appellant not appearing on the date fixed for hearing.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE: HIQ! COURT OF JUDICATURE AT JABALPUR Wk?.
SEccém: AWEAL No. G5 2_01:N zooe
K
UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVILPROCEDURE 1908
APPELLANT n Mahendra Kumar Agrawal , IPLANNTIFF7 s/o Shri Bhagwaii Prasad Agrawal, aged about 50 years,occupation Farmer, resident of village GullaJ‘ahsib and District Raipur M.P.
VERSUS
734:
30 years. Nos. 2-6 All sons oi Late Bhagwat Prasad Agrawal ,
Nos. 1-6 All resieents of village District Gullu,'rahsil and Raipur M.P.
,/
Raipurrnistrict Raipur; M. P . r , {Ln.
conta. .-'-2 -,
‘ mwg4ré5’9r/W. m 20
swam m (Wu)
| mmfzw‘w mmm |
WWW | 3wk@mmm§ N $wm v%rai‘&m3ni¥[ |
I 7 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sinqle Benr'h: Hon’ble Shri 04—02-2014 |
Justice Sanj’ay K. Agra |
wal | |
| The instant appeal Code of Civil Procedure, (1) |
nder Section IOO of 1908 was preferred in |
the the |
|
| year 2000. It is to be Court record is available |
ard on admission. L e |
ower | |
| (2) The appeal was call pre and post lunch sessi was 'made on behalf of' occasions to prosecute e t- |
out for hearing twic ns, but no representa e appellant on both appeal. h |
e in tion the |
|
| (3) In Ajit Kumar Singh Lalv 'a‘nd othersl, the \ S ‘that.where the counsel |
and others v. Chiran preme Court clearly or the appellant did |
jibi held not |
|
| appear ‘despite adequa course open to the High t |
opportunity, the Court was to dismiss |
only the |
|
| appeal for non-prosecut judgment'of the Supreme |
for default . ourt reads as under: On Or |
The | |
| “'7.’ A pla i provisions.shows th the procedurevwhic to ‘ the' responde ‘1 Am 2002 sc 1447 (2) ii, ought to follow‘ b |
V reading of the t Rule ll deals with the Appellate Court fore' ordering . notice ts'.'v Sub—rule '(1) R |
‘ ‘ , ‘ |
\X‘
i§a2mmma§ Km§fwmH$
wgAréYZ/Zm
W20
‘a§w $($¥K§)
| mama?“ mwm wmm |
Wm wm %-'aif%m3né¥l |
|---|---|
| if it thinks fit the appellant comprehend the c phrase "after fix the appellant or h him" it will be empowers the Court. rule (2) also whi date fixed or any hearing- may be ad (which means appe does not appear make an dismissed. The under this non-prosecution or as is commonly c Order 4 l , fortified from a default. It says, an appeal is dis sub-rule (2) or r11 Court for the appeal, and,\where was prevented by from called on for hea fe—admit the appea costs or otherwise called on for he order sub-r Rule l and (2) read with by Act 104 of 1976 1,9 of Order ‘41 w admission of a the appellant may appearing w |
to dismiss the appeal so to do after hearing 0 orrect ing a day for hearing is pleader and hearing n r his pleader. To import of the ecessary to read sub- ch says that if on the other day to which the journed, the appellant llant or his pleader) alled. perusal of Rule 17(l) the explanation added and provision of Rule dismissed for inter alia, that wher missed under Rule l1, ring the Court shall l on such terms as to aring, that the Jle is when the appeal is the Court may appeal be dismissal postulated dismissal ’ for dismissal for default This import of l(l) and (2) is also hich provides for re ppeal - e le (17) or rule .(18),~ apply to the Appellate re-admission of‘ the it is proved that he any“sufficient cause appeal was hen the as it thinks fit. |
WWW, mum—mug—
S Av-éS- 292% Wm
g§l20‘
‘mm (Wu)
.‘ \
1 issue framed by the court
Whether an appeal is liable to be dismissed for default when the appellant fails to appear despite being called for hearing.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ajit Kumar Singh v Chiran LalReferred¶22
Ajit Kumar Singh v Chiran Lal others (2002) 1 SCC 1447 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Mahendra Kumar Agrawal
Smt. Kamlabai Agrawal
Santosh Kumar Agrawal
Shashi Kumar Agrawal
Sushil Kumar Agrawal
Subodh Kumar Agrawal
Sanjiv K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
