Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.17 seconds)Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs Makhan Lal on 21 August, 2012
13.As per the provisions, it is made clear that as per the Rule 17(1) of Order 41 deals with the dismissal of appeal for appellant's default. The above mentioned provision, even without explanation, if literally read, would clearly indicate that if the appellant does not appear when the appeal is called for hearing, the court has to dismiss the appeal. The provision does not postulate a situation where, the appeal has to be decided on merits, because possibility of allowing of the appeal is also there, if the appellant has a good case on merits; even if no body had appeared for the appellant. The Honble Apex Court has very clearly held that in the case of Ghanshyam Dass Gupta v. Makhan Lal reported in (Civil Appeal No.5950 of 2012 dated 21.08.2012 as follows:
Abdur Rahman & Ors vs Athifa Begum & Ors on 30 August, 1996
14.The Honble Supreme Court in yet another case in Abdur Rahman and Others v. Athifa Begum and Others reported in (1996) 6 SCC 62, wherein the scope of explanation to Rule 17(1) of Order 41 of CPC came up for consideration. While interpreting the said provision, the Hon'ble Apex Court took the view that the High Court could not go into the merits of the case if there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant.
Article 227 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
1