Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.19 seconds)B. Janakiramaiah Chetty vs A.K. Parthasarthi And Ors on 3 April, 2003
12. Order 17 Rule 3 of the CPC declares as to what should be done if
any party to a suit to whom time has been granted, fails to produce his evidence
or to cause the attendance of his witnesses or to perform any other act
necessary to the further progress of the suit and the court, may,
notwithstanding such default:- (a) if the parties are or any of them is absent
proceed under Rule 2. Rule 3 of Order 17 operates in a case where trial had
already commenced. The Honourable Supreme Court in the decision referred to by
the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of B.Janakiramaiah Chetty
Vs. A.K.Parthasarathi and others (supra) has laid the law thus:-
Arumugha Gounder And Ors. vs Tmt. Palaniammal And Ors. on 7 November, 2000
8. Per contra, Mr.G.Mariappan, the learned counsel for the
respondent would contend that if the Explanation to Rule 2 of Order 17 is taken
into account, then on the evidence of DW.1 in chief available on record the
court has a discretion to dispose of the suit as contemplated under Order 17
Rule 3(a) of CPC. He would place reliance on the decision of this court
rendered in the case of Arumuga Gounder and others Vs. Palaniammal and others
[2001-1-MLJ-15].
Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986
17. The Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Chander
Manchanda and another Vs. Janki Manchanda [AIR-1987-SC-42] has emphasised the
said position of law as here under:-
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Rama Panicker Divakara Panicker Of ... vs Bakari Hydrose, Chennampilly And Ors. on 18 December, 1989
In the case of Rama Panicker Divakara Panicker of Pavana Veedu
Vs. Bakari Hydrose, Chennampilly and others [AIR-1990-Kerala-295], it has been
held thus:-
Smt. Gulab Devi Widow Of Vishwanath ... vs Smt. Premwati Widow Of Kanahaya Lal And ... on 1 May, 1995
In yet another case reported in Smt.Gulab Devi, widow of
Vishwanath Sahai Vs. Smt.Premavati widow of Kanahyalal and others [AIR-1996-All-
22] when the plaintiff and his counsel were present and the defendant's petition
for adjournment was rejected, the trial court proceeded under Order 17 Rule 3
and decided the case on merits, the Allahabad High Court has held that the
procedure adopted by the court below is not proper and held that at first the
court could proceed under Order 17 Rule 2 of CPC only and proceeding under Order
17 Rule 3 would be applicable only when parties were present meaning thereby all
the parties to the suit.
1