Dismissed

Shyamlal and Anr. v. Dulorin Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2014SA/876/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A single judge of the High Court at Jabalpur dismissed Second Appeal No. 79 of 1999 filed by Shyam Lal and Hemlal Yadav for lack of sufficient cause for non-appearance at the hearing, following precedents on default dismissal under CPC Order 41, Rule 11.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal No. 79 of 1999 was dismissed as the appellant failed to appear without sufficient cause.

mmw m	WM wm %‘ ‘ m WWW
	3hri Justi:e Sanjax K- Aurawai Sinale Bench: Han'ble E3—D3£2914
	’tll £1} The imtant £§pa Ctda cvf Civil Pracadure, 19M was tgreferred in thQ
	be hearé an admi$3iam Caurt rec-rim is avail
	(2) The appeal was ‘c lléd taut far hearing twice in pra and post lunch s ssians, but m: representatian thé appellanw an bath the Rewandgnt Ha.4!3tate is mprasé tad by Shri Sanjeév Agrawal, léarnéd Panal Lawyer . wag made an bahalf acaasiana: ta prasea 1:2 appeal. a
	(3) ‘I‘n Ajit Kmar s' gh and athers v. Chiranjibi Suprema Caurt clearly hélti that Wham the couns l fer the aepellant did net ‘5 Lal and athers‘, t agapertunity, gh tourt was t0 dismiss the a CGurSQ pen ts the i
	appesl far nan—pres sutien m: far default. jaudgment 0f the Supre e Caurt reads as under: _L
	‘\ HR QOOZ Sci

mmw
m

WM wm
%‘
‘
m
WWW

3hri
Justi:e
Sanjax K-
Aurawai
Sinale
Bench:
Han'ble
E3—D3£2914

’tll
£1}
The
imtant
£§pa
Ctda
cvf
Civil
Pracadure,
19M
was
tgreferred
in
thQ

be
hearé
an
admi$3iam
Caurt
rec-rim
is
avail

(2)
The
appeal was
‘c
lléd
taut
far
hearing
twice
in
pra
and post
lunch
s
ssians,
but
m:
representatian
thé
appellanw
an
bath
the
Rewandgnt
Ha.4!3tate
is
mprasé
tad
by
Shri
Sanjeév
Agrawal,
léarnéd Panal
Lawyer .
wag
made
an
bahalf
acaasiana:
ta
prasea
1:2
appeal.
a

(3)
‘I‘n
Ajit
Kmar
s'
gh
and
athers
v.
Chiranjibi
Suprema
Caurt
clearly
hélti
that
Wham
the
couns
l
fer
the
aepellant
did
net
‘5
Lal
and
athers‘,
t
agapertunity,
gh
tourt
was
t0
dismiss
the
a
CGurSQ
pen
ts
the
i

appesl
far
nan—pres
sutien
m:
far
default.
jaudgment
0f the
Supre
e Caurt
reads
as
under:
_L

‘\ HR QOOZ Sci

WWW WWW	mmm	WW wm éKa‘ménéw
	11?: A pmvisiom sh thé lyrocfedura aught to foll tc: the re amtawars the C if it thinlm thé appéllmx mmpréhend t‘ phrwé ”aftér the appellant him" it will rula (2‘; alga data fixati pr hearing may be (whichmeana deaa not app calleci an far make an ard dismissec‘i. T under this a mn—preaecuti a3 is corman fertifieci from and (2) read w by Act 104 pf 19 pf Qrder 4 aemisaien pf <iefault. It se e h e n Grder 41, Ru l a s f t n ” l a t	plain wading Qf thg that Rule ll aeais with ic3h tha Appellate; Caurt befare ardering natiae andents. Sub—rulé (1} urt ta ciismisg thé appeal t st: ta dc: after hearing cur hi3 pleacier. To aarract impart af the iging a day far haaring r his pleader and hearing nepesgary ta raad pub— iph says that if pa the: y ^{pthaf day ta which the} adjpurned; the appallant ellant er his plaader) ar when tha appaal is hearing, the Caurt may that the appeal be diamiaaal pestulated rule ia (iiamisaal fer tar diamiasal far default called. This impart of 11(1‘; and (2) is, alee a perueal of Rule l'M'l) th the explanatien adeed 976 and praviaipn pf Rule whiph prevides far re— appeal tiismissed fer . inter alia. that where ~ s h t ' a h m p s

WWW
WWW

mmm

WW wm
éKa‘ménéw

11?:
A
pmvisiom
sh
thé
lyrocfedura
aught
to
foll
tc:
the
re
amtawars
the
C
if
it
thinlm
thé
appéllmx
mmpréhend
t‘
phrwé
”aftér
the
appellant
him"
it
will
rula
(2‘;
alga
data
fixati pr
hearing
may
be
(whichmeana
deaa
not
app
calleci
an
far
make
an
ard
dismissec‘i.
T
under
this
a
mn—preaecuti
a3
is
corman
fertifieci
from
and
(2)
read
w
by Act
104
pf
19
pf
Qrder
4
aemisaien
pf
<iefault.
It se
e
h
e
n
Grder
41,
Ru
l
a
s
f
t
n
”
l
a
t

plain
wading
Qf
thg
that
Rule
ll
aeais
with
ic3h
tha
Appellate;
Caurt
befare
ardering
natiae
andents.
Sub—rulé
(1}
urt
ta
ciismisg
thé
appeal
t
st:
ta
dc:
after
hearing
cur
hi3
pleacier.
To
aarract
impart
af
the
iging
a
day
far
haaring
r
his
pleader
and hearing
nepesgary
ta
raad
pub—
iph
says
that
if
pa
the:
y ^{pthaf day ta which the}
adjpurned;
the
appallant
ellant
er
his
plaader)
ar
when
tha
appaal
is
hearing,
the
Caurt
may
that
the
appeal
be
diamiaaal
pestulated
rule
ia
(iiamisaal
fer
tar
diamiasal
far
default
called.
This
impart
of
11(1‘;
and
(2)
is,
alee
a
perueal
of
Rule
l'M'l)
th
the
explanatien
adeed
976
and praviaipn pf
Rule
whiph
prevides
far
re—
appeal
tiismissed
fer
.
inter
alia.
that where
~
s
h
t
'
a
h
m
p
s

W WWW mm	mmm	mm f¥ém *a'fcmm
	[1. .. I Im' bl - ‘ Ant. v. Munehi m _ appaal s A ub—rule {2) ox «.he apggllant m Caurt for tha &p§eal, and, w wag prevented fram apygearin aalléd an far ré—acimit théxa catts: a}: atharw B: Théte can Caurt arraneous af Drdér 41, ‘3 ta thé High C appeal fer abeenee of aev The High Ceu eaneidered the dismise the Sec 738)}. The 3a Abdut Rahman é: are. {1996 (6} §4§ Eh View ef the b	en-yreseeutien in the kismisged unde: E112 11, rule (17} m: rule {1E}, ay apply ta thé Apgzéllaté re— admiwian cf. tha are it is pravad that he y any suffiaiént £au$e when the appeal was h£&rinq tha Caurt smu eal an such tarmg as ta 5Q ag it thi'aks fit‘ 11a dauht thm: tha Eig" y ^interpmted Rulé 11(1) C. Thg anly caurse open urt was tr: diSmigg thé ate for the appellante. t ought not to have merite af the ease to nd Appeal. [See Rafiq & a1 a: 3am. {1931 (2m SCC View was reiterateti in 01:3. v. 'thifa Begum & C: 62].“ C ave settled legal pesitien, h
	this Ceurt cannet	reeeed te hear the instant
	eepeel an admissien	exaept te disguise t f0!
	nen—presecutien and	as such, the appeal i5
	diemiseed.	Sd/—
		Sanjay K. Agrawal /“ r Judge

W
WWW
mm

mmm

mm f¥ém
*a'fcmm

[1.
..
I
Im'
bl
-
‘ Ant.
v.
Munehi
m
_
appaal
s
A
ub—rule
{2)
ox
«.he
apggllant m
Caurt
for
tha
&p§eal,
and,
w
wag
prevented
fram
apygearin
aalléd
an
far
ré—acimit
théxa
catts:
a}: atharw
B:
Théte
can
Caurt
arraneous
af
Drdér
41,
‘3
ta
thé
High
C
appeal
fer
abeenee of
aev
The
High
Ceu
eaneidered
the
dismise
the
Sec
738)}.
The
3a
Abdut
Rahman
é:
are.
{1996
(6}
§4§
Eh
View
ef
the
b

en-yreseeutien
in
the
kismisged
unde:
E112
11,
rule
(17}
m:
rule
{1E},
ay apply ta
thé
Apgzéllaté
re—
admiwian
cf.
tha
are
it
is
pravad
that
he
y
any
suffiaiént
£au$e
when
the
appeal
was
h£&rinq
tha
Caurt
smu
eal
an
such
tarmg
as
ta
5Q
ag
it
thi'aks
fit‘
11a
dauht
thm:
tha
Eig"
y ^interpmted
Rulé
11(1)
C.
Thg
anly
caurse
open
urt
was
tr:
diSmigg
thé
ate
for
the
appellante.
t
ought
not
to
have
merite
af
the
ease
to
nd
Appeal.
[See
Rafiq
&
a1
a:
3am.
{1931
(2m
SCC
View
was
reiterateti
in
01:3.
v.
'thifa
Begum
&
C:
62].“
C
ave
settled
legal
pesitien,
h

this
Ceurt
cannet

reeeed
te
hear
the
instant

eepeel
an
admissien

exaept
te
disguise
t
f0!

nen—presecutien
and

as
such,
the
appeal
i5

diemiseed.

Sd/—

Sanjay K. Agrawal
/“
r
Judge

Shyamlal and Anr. v. Dulorin Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shyamlal and Anr. v. Dulorin Bai 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.aakansha Sharma Vs Akash Sharma

Future Generali Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Bheekham Urf Bheekhu Sahu and Ors.

Smt.harbhajan Kour And Anr. Vs Nasimuddin @ Hasimuddin And Ors.

Dholi Bai and Ors. Vs Premlal and Ors.

Dhanajiram and Ors. Vs Praveen Kumar and Ors.

Puran Singh Vs Sagabati Bai and Ors.