Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Firdous Omer (D) By Lrs. & Ors vs Bankim Chandra Daw (D) By Lrs.& Ors on 28 July, 2006
10. In yet another decision in Firdous omer (dead) by LRs. and others
Vs. Bankim Chandra Daw (dead) by LRs and others, reported in (2006) 6 SCC
569, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that a dismissal of the suit for non
prosecution or for non appearance of the plaintiff is not a decree as
specified by Section 2(2) of C.P.C. itself and it is not appealable as a
decree.
P. Ganesan vs Uco Bank Rep. By Its Branch Manager, ... on 20 March, 1998
7. When the similar issue arose for consideration, a learned Single
Judge of this Court in P.Ganesan Vs. UCO Bank rep. by its Branch Manager,
Namagiripet and two others, reported in 1998 (II) CTC 290, has held in
paragraph No.8 as follows:
Section 104 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 144 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Prakash Chander Manchanda And Anr vs Smt. Janki Manchanda on 18 November, 1986
19. Order 17 Rules 2 and 3, CPC was amended under Act 104 of 1976.
After the Amendment, the said Rules came for interpretation by the Supreme
Court in, Prakash Chander Manchanda v. Janki Manchanda, . After extracting
Rules 2 and 3 of Order 17, CPC. Their Lordships held that, "It is clear that
in cases where a party is absent the only course as mentioned in Order 17,
Rule 3 (b) is to proceed under Rule 2. ..."(Italics) I have already held that
it is not the physical presence of the party that is essential, but his
appearance must be for the further progress to the suit. If this is the
interpretation for appearance, naturally he must be treated as absent. If
that be so, the only course open to the Court is to dismiss the case for
default. The Honourable Supreme Court has held thus:-
Manibala Dassi vs Tamizuddin Saha And Anr. on 25 May, 1965
In Manibala Dassi v. Tamizuddin Saha and another, , a learned Judge
of that High Court went to the extent of saying that if a party has engaged a
Counsel, the appearance must be by the party with the Counsel. In that case,
it was held thus:-
Allah Bux vs Budha And Ors. on 24 February, 1939
In Allah Bux v. Budha, AIR 1939 All. 451, it was a case where an
appeal was dismissed for default. Appellant was present in Court. The
question was, whether the dismissal was one for default or on merits. It was
held thus:-
1