Allowed

J.N.Ranganathan v. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

Madras HC19 Sept 2024CRP/2951/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a Civil Revision Petition challenging an appellate order passed on merits in the absence of appellants. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that Order XLI Rule 17 CPC mandates dismissal for default, not on merits. The impugned order was set aside and remanded.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order set aside; matter remitted to the Principal District Judge to pass orders in compliance with Order XLI Rule 17 CPC.

J.N.Ranganathan Vs the Deputy Registrar of… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Madras HC (2024)

¶1

2024:MHC:3457

¶2

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶4

DATED :19.09.2024

¶5

CORAM

¶6

THE HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE R.N.MANJULA

¶7

CRP.No.2951 of 2024 and CMP.No.15787 of 2024

J.N.Ranganathan

... Petitioner

/vs/

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), No.18, Varadanar Street, Vedachala Nagar, Chengalpattu.

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

Prayer: Civil Revision Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside the judgement and decree passed in Cooperative Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.7/2009 dated 03.11.2023 on the file of the Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu and pass such further or other orders as this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶14

For Petitioner : Mr.P.K.Ganesh For Respondent : Mr.C.Sathish, Government Advocate

¶15

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

1/6

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

ORDER

Heard Mr.P.K.Ganesh, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.C.Sathish, learned Government Advocate for the respondent.

¶20

2. The petitioner has filed this Civil Revision Petition by challenging the common order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu dated 03.11.2023 in Co-operative CMA.No.7/2009 in which the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed by this petitioner and others have been dismissed.

¶21

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the appellate authority, without following the provision of Order XLI Rule 17 of CPC, passed orders on merits in the appeals filed by them in their absence.

¶22

4 . Reliance was placed on the recent judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court made in SLP.No.23809/2023 wherein the Court has held that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for, the appeal can only be dismissed for non prosecution and not on merits. However, the learned Appellate Authority had chosen to pass an exhaustive order on merits even in the absence of the appellants. The order would only show at the time when these appeals

¶23

2/6

¶24

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶25

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

¶26

were called that there was no representation on behalf of the appellants. In that case, the rightful course is to dismiss the appeals for default. Since the court did not follow the provisions under Order XLI Rule 17 CPC, which would read as

¶27

under:

¶28

"17. Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default:

¶29

(1) Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called on for hearing, the Court may make an order that the appeal be dismissed.

¶30

Explanation:Nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the court to dismiss the appeal on the merits."

¶31

Had the appeal been dismissed simply, the appellants would have got an

¶32

opportunity to restore their appeals and argue the case on merits. But the Appellate Court had adverted to pass an order on merits, which is not correct. In view of the above stated reasons, it is appropriate to remand the matter back to the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu, in order to pass an order either on merits and in the event that all the appellants make their appearance and advance their arguments, or, in the absence of their appearance, to pass an order in compliance with Order 41 Rule 17 of CPC as

¶33

3/6

¶34

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶35

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

¶36

already stated above.

¶37

In view of the above stated reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the impugned order passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Kancheepuram District at Chengalpattu dated 03.11.2023 in Co-operative CMA.No.7/2009 is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Chengalpattu, to pass orders either on merits in the event that all the appellants make their appearance and advance their arguments, or, in the absence of their appearance, to pass an order in compliance with Order 41 Rule 17 of CPC. There shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶38

19.09.2024

¶39

Index : Yes /No Internet : Yes/No Speaking: Non-Speaking Neutral: Yes/No

¶40

jrs

¶41

4/6

¶42

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶43

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

¶44

¶45

The Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing), No.18, Varadanar Street, Vedachala Nagar, Chengalpattu.

¶46

5/6

¶47

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

CRP.No.2951 of 2024

R.N.MANJULA, J.

jrs

CRP.No.2951 of 2024 and CMP.No.15787 of 2024

¶52

19.09.2024

¶53

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶54

6/6

J.N.Ranganathan v. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

J.N.Ranganathan v. the Deputy Registrar of Cooperative Societies (Housing)

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

M/s.Grace Infrastructure Pvt. Vs Deputy Labour Commissioner

Mr.a.L.Ramachandra Vs The Official Liquidator

Citu Nlc Labour and Staff Vs Government of India

K.Vijayan Vs The Principal chief conservator of Forests

The Management, Vs The Presiding Officer

The Management Vs The Appellate Authority