Single-bench judgment holding that the High Court could not decide the appeal on merits due to the appellant's non-appearance, mandating dismissal for default under Order 41 Rule 17 CPC.
The appeal of the Judgment-dated 3.10.1996, decided by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh on merits in the absence of the appellant, must be dismissed for default.
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.
CF000001 6772
a \VIBH
IN THEHIGHcouarOFJUDIcgiURE s gmJgBgIPUR §MP ) ‘ A second AypealNo ?J 7 H.999.
3 l. Dholi Bai D/o Chamru,w1!e ai Bahadur singh ¢ppe11ants Sadhwani, Defendants. 2. Narhadia Bai D/o Chant-u Wiie of Narau.R/eNina dha, 3.UmendSingh3/0 Chanru,R/o Niwedari. A11 Tahaxl PendraRoad, Dist.311as13ur (MP).
Resp¢ndenta: Plantain.
The State at Madhya Pradesh,through the Collector,311asp‘ur (MP).
PASSED IN cIVILAGAmsi'Awsgi.THEN0.JUDGMENT43d;/98{AmsmaAN DEcRE’Eawayn TEDcIVIL 35H’ N0.120£g(86, DECIDEDJBY Jummmweanmam mm 3.10.1996,b1 CIVIL wmm'cmssvx Pmlm Rom mm; msum OF mE' APPmLAm'JY REvmsmG' THE Jammie? Ann nEwEE Mm §.1o:1$6, PASSED BY cIVIL JUmE LLASS-I,Pmnm Rem.
Q‘E'mm‘r r“WT“ "
WW,W,W
mm
51% 3?5% 1g? 1:120
mm (W)
| KamRv%aa&$ | amhwnmm m&$mg( %a‘f%m{m%¥l |
|---|---|
| Singie Bench: Hon’bj |
e 3hri Justice San‘av K. awal |
| 93-62—2014 | |
| {1) The instant a] |
apeal undér Séctian 100 cf the |
| tadé 0f Civil Prom |
Edure, 1908 was greferred in thé |
| yéar 19%. It 1:3, |
in admitted appeal. Lawar Caurt |
| recaxd is availablé |
x |
| Q The appaal was 2} |
aallad aut far haaring twiaé in |
| pre and p95“: lunch |
sassions, but 110 representatian |
| wag madé an bahali |
Df the appellant3 an hath tha |
| mcasiana: ta pmi |
mauté ‘the atgéeal: Respanderit |
| méfState is regre |
seated by Shri Sanjeav Aqrawal, |
| Learnad {Jamal Lawye |
I. |
| {3) Very recently] |
in Ghanshyam Da5s Gugta vg |
| Makhari Lal‘, tha q |
uéstian as ta whéther thg High |
| Cauxt was justifi |
ad in deciding thé appéal an |
| méritn in the abs |
ence nf any repré$antati0n an |
| behaif nf . the an; Supréma Court ham <.. |
:ellant was cansiderad and thg as unden: Ki |
| (“90m5a |
XI—HC—78
\ \
WW,W,W
m amiaa
m 3.2%....[32 m 20
mm (W)
| mwm mmm |
WWW | mm js‘éW awiEmm |
|---|---|---|
| “:3; Shli Rakes appearing an Eubmitteci that justifiéd in dg $inae thére behalf of thé caunsel paintad apeh ta the Ce the appeal ext d but net te tieci View of the Ex 17m eec. h ' |
Dahiya; learned aaunsel half 0f tha appéllant, the; High Caurt was net iding the appeal an marits £ no representation an appellant. Thé laarnéd Gut that the only caurse rt wee either te diemise fault or adjeurn the game, ’e the matter en merits, in lanatien‘ te Drder 41 Rule e |
|
| 5. The learn behalf ef the judgment of the the appeai wee up fer final hine years, ‘ justified in de even if there ef the appellan e ‘ ’ |
canneel appearing en reepencient suhported the High Ceurt centemiing that of the year 2MB and came aring after a periee‘ ef nd the High Ceuft wee iding the matter on merits no appearance en behalf . s e |
|
| 6: We ai‘e, in caheider wheth justified in tie in the absence behalf ef the a |his caae, called 1.1mm t0 1“ the High ceurt waa iding the appeal an merits ef any repreeehtatien en pellant; in View ef the t |
XI-Hc—ys
WW,W,W
[52. m m.863.
“i 20
3mm (W)
| Warm waxémm |
WWW | mm j2Q°Im animam |
|---|---|---|
| Tha said provis refémngé: Exgzlanatign ta |
mn is givan helaw far gag}! Qrdar 41 Rule: 17H.) CFC, |
|
| “17. thQ day aajaurneii, appear wh appeilaut" day ta w Can far h take an m: diamissed. Eamlana sub-rule ampawaring the ab'paal D' f e h‘ |
chfatilt. {1) Where an m tha hearing may be tha apgellant daei; mt missai ¢f appeal. far ad, ar rm any cther tha appeal is called axing, the Caurt may er that the appeal be ian. Nathing in thia all be canatruad as; the caurt ta dismiaa an tha merits.” s c x h |
|
| k?‘ Eula 17(1) diamiaaal {7f a tiafault‘ The avan withaut read: weula‘ cl appellant rises is called fer dismiss the app pestulate a si has ta he ale |
f Order 411 daala with the paal for tha aypellant" abavementianaa praviaian, planatian, if literally arly ihciicate that if the t appear when the appeal aring, the ceurt has ta al. The pravisian (ices net uatien where, the appeal ideal an merits, beaauae x a e |
3a2mm, m, W
mm
s.d.t/W
Wm (WW)
| WWW waWm |
mmm | MW W *a‘mm |
W |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| a mar pwsibility alSQ thére, ‘ an appaared far . |
allawinq Qf t the apgellant t5: Ye appellant.” |
ha appeal is has |
||
| (4 ¥ I In viéw af the |
ahave settlad |
lagal {.msiti |
an, | |
| this Ceurt cannat |
prcaeed ta clac |
idé the inst |
ant | |
| agpeatl an marits |
xcapt ta dism |
i5s it far |
the | |
| atspéllants‘ default |
and as; |
the appeal |
is | |
| dismigsad, | ||||
| sanjay K. Agra | wal |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal on merits in the absence of representation on behalf of the appellant.
Whether the appeal should be set aside or dismissed for default.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Dholi Bai / Narhadia Bai / Umend Singh
State of Madhya Pradesh
Sri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
