Supreme Court Allows Appellant in Civil Procedure Case Due to Valid Reasons for Non-Appearance. Dismissal on Merits Cannot Preclude Restoration of Appeal Under Order XLI Rule 19 of CPC.

In Favour of Accused
  • 2
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal against the order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court which dismissed an application to recall the order dismissing a Second Appeal. The appellant, Sarman Singh, filed the Second Appeal questioning the correctness of the order passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Kapurthala, which had affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kapurthala. On the date of the hearing, the appellant's counsel was engaged in another matter before the Chief Justice, leading to non-appearance. The High Court dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution, noting the absence of the appellant. Subsequently, an application was filed under Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking restoration of the appeal, explaining the reasons for non-appearance. The High Court dismissed this application, stating that the matter had been decided on merits. The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not consider the factual aspects of the case and that the reasons for non-appearance were valid. The Court held that the dismissal on merits should not preclude the restoration of the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order and directed the restoration of the Second Appeal, allowing the appeals without any order as to costs.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Appeals - Non-Appearance of Counsel - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order XLI Rule 19, Section 151 - The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal due to non-appearance of the appellant's counsel, despite the reasons for absence being provided. The Supreme Court held that the dismissal on merits could not be a ground to refuse restoration, thus allowing the appeal and directing restoration of the Second Appeal (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration of the Second Appeal based on non-appearance of the appellant's counsel.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Supreme Court set aside the impugned order of the High Court and directed the restoration of the Second Appeal, allowing the appeals without any order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Restoration of appeals
  • Non-appearance
  • Order XLI Rule 19 CPC
  • Section 151 CPC
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2007 LawText (SC) (03) 112

Appeal (civil) 1583 of 2007

2007-03-26

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Sarman Singh

Kishan Singh (dead) thr. Lrs.and Ors

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Appeal against dismissal of application for restoration of Second Appeal.

Remedy Sought

Restoration of the Second Appeal.

Filing Reason

Non-appearance of counsel on the date of hearing.

Previous Decisions

The High Court dismissed the Second Appeal for want of prosecution.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in dismissing the application for restoration based on non-appearance.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant argued that valid reasons for non-appearance were provided. The respondents contended that the matter was decided on merits, thus no restoration was warranted.

Ratio Decidendi

The dismissal of an appeal on merits does not preclude the restoration of the appeal if valid reasons for non-appearance are provided.

Judgment Excerpts

The High Court has not found the reason indicated to be in any manner incorrect or untrue. Merely because the appeal has been dismissed on merits that could not have been a ground to refuse restoration.

Procedural History

The appellant filed Second Appeal No.4802/2003 before the High Court, which was dismissed for want of prosecution due to non-appearance of counsel. An application for restoration was subsequently filed, which was also dismissed by the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order XLI Rule 19, Section 151
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court Enhances Compensation for Motor Accident Victims with Amputation and Crush Injuries. The court increased the award for the appellant with leg amputation and for the appellant with foot crush injury, considering permanent disability and med...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Upholds Direct Recruits' Seniority in Chargeman Grade-I Dispute; Rejects Promotees' Claim of Quota Rule Breakdown. Union of India's Appeal Allowed as Madras Tribunal Decision Based on Concession, Not Merit; Bangalore Tribunal's Finding ...