Disposed

Puran Singh v. Sagabati Bai and Ors.

Chhattisgarh HC2 Feb 2014SA/886/1999

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of MP annulled an earlier order dismissing an appeal for default. It held that Order XLIII Rule 11 CPC does not apply post-hearing and that the appeal could not be dismissed for default as the appellant had been given notice and opportunity to be heard.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal of the appeal for default was set aside and the appeal was admitted for hearing.

maxim mmm	WWW	mm fzém %airauam
	Singie Bench: Hon’bl €33—G2—2G14	e 3hri Justice Em‘mx K. Agrawai
	(1,) The instant a Sade Qf Civil Prace	eai under Eectian 1W3 af the uré, 1968 was prefarred in the
	year 1999. It is Caurt retard i5 axva	o be hgard an admission. Lower labia.
	(Q) Tha argpaai was pre and past lunch wan madé an behalf nccasinns tn prns mnizfsmte is regre learned Panel Lawye	callad out far hearirzg twice in assigns, but nc: renrennntatinn nf the appellant an bath the cute thn appeal. 'Respandent ented by Shri Saajeev Agrawali .
	{,3} in Ajit Kumar	ingh and athers v. Chiranjibi
	ial aria nthers‘, T _hat where the can 1"‘’	e Supreme Caurt czlearly held sel fer the appellant did. net
	appear despite a neurse npen tr: the	quate eppertunity, the enly High Cnurt was te dismiss the
	appeal fer nan—pr juvigment ^{nf theaupi}	secutinn er fer default, The ^{eme teurt reads} as under:
- Wee	n sz *x \|

maxim
mmm

WWW

mm fzém
%airauam

Singie Bench:
Hon’bl
€33—G2—2G14

e 3hri Justice Em‘mx K.
Agrawai

(1,)
The
instant
a
Sade
Qf
Civil
Prace

eai
under
Eectian
1W3
af
the
uré,
1968
was
prefarred
in
the

year
1999.
It
is
Caurt retard
i5
axva

o
be
hgard
an
admission.
Lower
labia.

(Q)
Tha
argpaai
was
pre
and
past
lunch
wan
madé
an
behalf
nccasinns
tn
prns
mnizfsmte
is
regre
learned Panel Lawye

callad out
far
hearirzg
twice
in
assigns,
but
nc:
renrennntatinn
nf
the
appellant
an
bath
the
cute
thn
appeal.
'Respandent
ented by
Shri
Saajeev
Agrawali
.

{,3}
in
Ajit
Kumar

ingh
and
athers
v.
Chiranjibi

ial
aria
nthers‘,
T
_hat
where
the
can
1"‘’

e
Supreme
Caurt
czlearly
held
sel
fer
the
appellant
did.
net

appear
despite
a
neurse
npen
tr:
the

quate
eppertunity,
the
enly
High
Cnurt
was
te
dismiss
the

appeal
fer
nan—pr
juvigment ^{nf theaupi}

secutinn
er
fer
default,
The
^{eme teurt reads}
as
under:

- Wee

n sz
*x
|

mmm ammm	mmm	am&§Hmm %§h&Em '%&$na&a
	“75 A previaiena aho the praceduré Qught tQ falle to the émpaWér£ thé if it thinkg f thé appéllant rés‘ C phrase ‘Vaftér tha appéllant him" it will xule (2) alsa data fixeti 0r chmprehemi the hearing may be gwhich meahe a tithes net app hailed an fer make an erei dismiesed. T untier this. 3L1 nen—preseeutie fertified fram and (2) read w by Act 104 ef ’ “lg ef Drder £1 admiasien of default. It sa b e h a3 15 comenl Drder 41, R111	plain reading 0f “ that Rule ll deala with : befara cardering natiga Eub—rulé t 5Q tcs do aftér hearing andéntrs . (l) rt ta digmiw the appwl or hi$ pleader. carractt impart of the xing a day far hearihg hi5 pleader ahd haaring neaessarv ta read gub-‘ ih‘n says that if an the othe-wr day ta which the adjeurned, the appellant pellant or his pleatier} r when the appeai hearing, -rule ie er dismissal far default Thie imxsert ef 11(1) and (2) is also a perusal 9f Rule 17(1) th the explanatiah added 976 and previsien ef Rule g3, inter alia, that where ealled. is the Ceurt may he peatulated dismissal fer which previdea fer re— dismiased hieh the Appellate lieurt that the appeal diamisaal the Te appeal for l i h y ‘

mmm
ammm

mmm

am&§Hmm
%§h&Em
'%&$na&a

“75
A
previaiena
aho
the
praceduré
Qught
tQ
falle
to
the
émpaWér£
thé
if
it
thinkg
f
thé
appéllant
rés‘
C
phrase
‘Vaftér
tha
appéllant
him"
it
will
xule
(2)
alsa
data
fixeti
0r
chmprehemi
the
hearing
may
be
gwhich
meahe
a
tithes
net
app
hailed
an
fer
make
an
erei
dismiesed.
T
untier
this.
3L1
nen—preseeutie
fertified
fram
and
(2)
read
w
by Act
104
ef
’
“lg
ef
Drder
£1
admiasien
of
default.
It sa

b
e
h
a3
15
comenl
Drder
41,
R111

plain
reading
0f
“
that
Rule
ll
deala with
:
befara
cardering
natiga
Eub—rulé
t
5Q
tcs
do
aftér
hearing
andéntrs .
(l)
rt
ta digmiw
the
appwl
or
hi$ pleader.
carractt
impart
of
the
xing
a
day
far
hearihg
hi5
pleader
ahd haaring
neaessarv
ta
read
gub-‘
ih‘n
says
that
if
an
the
othe-wr day ta which the
adjeurned,
the
appellant
pellant
or
his
pleatier}
r
when
the
appeai
hearing,
-rule
ie
er
dismissal
far
default
Thie
imxsert
ef
11(1)
and
(2)
is
also
a
perusal
9f
Rule
17(1)
th
the
explanatiah
added
976
and previsien ef
Rule
g3,
inter
alia,
that where
ealled.
is
the
Ceurt
may
he
peatulated
dismissal
fer
which
previdea
fer
re—
dismiased
hieh
the
Appellate
lieurt
that
the
appeal
diamisaal
the
Te
appeal
for
l
i
h
y
‘

WWW“	WW&§WW aiwauém
an appeal is sub—ruie (2} thé appallam: Saurt far t appaal, anti, wag pravantéd fram appearir tailed an far re—admit the aestg 0r tathér B: Theré can Caurt arranaau taf Urder 41, ta the High appeal fer abseme ef ad The High Ce ecneideree th dismise the S Ahr. v. Ethinehi 78ml. The ea Ahdur Rahman hrs. {19% (é)	digmi$3ed undér Eula 11, r rulé (17} m: rule {13‘}, ay apply to the Appellaté e ré— admiwicnn af thé hére it ig maveci that hé by any Euffiaiant c:aus~e when thé appaal was héaring the caart‘ shall ppéal an such terms ass m iga a5 it think fit. fa m daubt that the High ^'lyintérpreted Eula l’iii} W. The enl'y ceurge aper. surt was t3 dismiss the nan—presecution in the mate fer the appellants. rt might n01: ta have merits ef the cage ta hand Apheal‘ [See Rafiq & Lal e Ant. {1931 {26) Em: e View was reiterateti ih Dre. v. Athife Begum a ecc m.”	‘
{4} In view of the	aheve settled legal pesit	ion;
thie {laurt cahnet	preeeed ts hear the ins	tant
appeal en admisei	n except te dismies it	fer
heh—preeemtinn an.	as such, the wheel	is:
pH emi eemri . i	' Sd/— Sanjay K. Ag /,//_ Judge	rawal

WWW
39$!
mm

WWW“

WW&§WW
aiwauém

an
appeal
is
sub—ruie
(2}
thé
appallam:
Saurt
far
t
appaal,
anti,
wag
pravantéd
fram
appearir
tailed
an
far
re—admit
the
aestg
0r
tathér
B:
Theré
can
Caurt
arranaau
taf
Urder
41,
ta
the
High
appeal
fer
abseme
ef
ad
The
High
Ce
ecneideree
th
dismise
the
S
Ahr.
v.
Ethinehi
78ml.
The
ea
Ahdur
Rahman
hrs.
{19%
(é)

digmi$3ed
undér
Eula
11,
r
rulé
(17}
m:
rule
{13‘},
ay
apply
to
the Appellaté
e
ré—
admiwicnn
af
thé
hére
it
ig
maveci
that
hé
by
any
Euffiaiant
c:aus~e
when
thé
appaal
was
héaring
the
caart‘
shall
ppéal
an
such
terms
ass m
iga
a5
it think
fit.
fa m
daubt
that
the
High
^'lyintérpreted
Eula
l’iii}
W.
The
enl'y
ceurge
aper.
surt
was
t3
dismiss
the
nan—presecution
in
the
mate
fer
the
appellants.
rt
might
n01:
ta
have
merits
ef
the
cage
ta
hand
Apheal‘
[See
Rafiq
&
Lal
e Ant.
{1931
{26)
Em:
e
View
was
reiterateti
ih
Dre.
v.
Athife
Begum
a
ecc m.”

‘

{4}
In
view
of
the

aheve
settled
legal
pesit

ion;

thie
{laurt
cahnet

preeeed
ts
hear
the
ins

tant

appeal
en
admisei

n
except
te
dismies
it

fer

heh—preeemtinn
an.

as
such,
the
wheel

is:

pH emi eemri .
i

'
Sd/—
Sanjay K. Ag
/,//_
Judge

rawal

Puran Singh v. Sagabati Bai and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Singh v. Sagabati 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.

Shyamlal and Anr. Vs Dulorin Bai and Ors.