Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.36 seconds)Kunhibi vs Land Acquisition Officer, Kozhikode on 25 February, 1959
13. There is no quarrel with the above principle laid down by the learned single Judge of the Kerala High Court, which is based on the provisions of Order III Civil Procedure Code. There is no doubt that the husband of a woman, until and unless there is a valid power of attorney executed by his in his favour, cannot represent his wife in any legal proceedings. But, it is common knowledge that normally in rural areas in our country legal proceedings and financial matters of women are being looked after by their husbands. This is so common in rural areas. It is the case of the appellant that his husband has gone to Hyderabad on that particular date and he did not return back to Visakhapatnam to attend the Court. The husband of the appellant/plaintiff may not be able to conduct the legal proceedings on behalf of wife by entering the witness box on behalf of the appellant etc. That does not mean that he is debarred from giving instructions to the advocate as required by the appellant/plaintiff and watching the proceedings.
G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000
9. The learned Judge seems to have taken into consideration the absence of the appellant/plaintiff on some two earlier occasions (10-12-1992 and 29-12-1992). I may straight away observe that the past conduct of a party regarding default in appearance cannot be taken into consideration while deciding the question as to whether there was sufficient cause for non-appearance of the party on a particular subsequent date, i.e., the date on which the latest default is committed. In this case, the appellant seems to have not attended the Court on the earlier two occasions prior to 15-2-1993. I may usefully quote the ruling of the Supreme Court, though rendered while considering the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 CPC, in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada, 2000 (4) ALD 54 (SC), wherein it was held that the Court has to decide whether there was sufficient cause for the absence on the relevant date and a party cannot be penalised for his/her previous negligence which has been overlooked and condoned earlier. Therefore, in this case, the Court below is not justified in adverting to the previous conduct of the appellant/ plaintiff while refusing to set aside the default dismissal order. The Court below ought to have considered whether there was sufficient cause for the absence of the appellant/plaintiff on 15-2-1993 only, and not the previous conduct of the appellant. Hence the contention of the Counsel for respondents, that in view of the previous conduct of the appellant in not attending the Court the lower Court is right in dismissing the suit for default, cannot be accepted.
Malkiat Singh & Anr vs Joginder Singh & Ors on 2 December, 1997
In Malkiat Singh v. Joginder Singh, , the Supreme Court while dealing with the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13, CPC observed that when the Counsel reports no instructions, it is the
duty of the Court to issue notice to the party concerned before proceeding further in the matter. In this case, no notice is issued to the appellant/plaintiff by the Court below to that effect. On this ground also, the order under appeal is liable to be set aside.
1