Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by Miss Angelas Francis against Miss Andrey D'souza and another respondent. The dispute originated from Civil Suit No.2033 of 1983 decided by the Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court at Pune. The suit was challenged in Civil Appeal No.844 of 1988 before the District Court, which was allowed by the Additional District Judge at Pune on 30/10/1991. However, this decree was modified by the High Court in Writ Petition No.5886 of 1991, holding that the petitioner-tenants are entitled to retain possession of one room. The present revision application was admitted on 7/11/1997 and expedited. When it came up for final hearing on 7/3/2002, none appeared for the petitioner, and it was dismissed in default. It was restored by an order dated 26/3/2002 allowing Civil Application No.93 of 2003. On the date of final hearing, again none appeared for the petitioner. The court, therefore, proceeded to decide the revision application on merits and dismissed it for non-prosecution. The court did not analyze the merits of the case beyond noting the procedural history and the absence of the petitioner.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Revision Application - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Order 41 Rule 17 CPC - The petitioner was absent at final hearing despite restoration of the application - Court proceeded to decide on merits and dismissed the revision application for non-prosecution - Held that the court may dismiss the appeal or revision if the appellant or petitioner fails to appear (Para 1).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the revision application should be dismissed for non-prosecution when the petitioner is absent at final hearing.
Final Decision
The revision application is dismissed for non-prosecution.
Law Points
- Revision application dismissed for non-prosecution
- Civil Procedure Code
- 1908
- Order 41 Rule 17
- Rent control
- Tenant's right to retain possession
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (08) 24
Civil Revision Application No. 1116 of 1997
None for the Petitioner; Mr. Sarang Aradhye h/f Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondents
Miss Andrey D'souza and anr.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil revision application challenging the decree in a rent control suit.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to challenge the decree passed by the lower appellate court as modified by the High Court in Writ Petition No.5886 of 1991.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the decree that allowed the tenants to retain possession of one room.
Previous Decisions
Civil Suit No.2033 of 1983 was decided by the Principal Judge of the Small Causes Court at Pune; appeal allowed by Additional District Judge on 30/10/1991; decree modified by High Court in Writ Petition No.5886 of 1991.
Issues
Whether the revision application should be dismissed for non-prosecution due to absence of the petitioner at final hearing.
Submissions/Arguments
None for the petitioner; respondents argued for dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
When the petitioner fails to appear at the final hearing of a revision application, the court may dismiss it for non-prosecution under Order 41 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Judgment Excerpts
When it is called out today for final hearing, none is present for the petitioner. I, therefore, feel it appropriate to proceed to decide the revision application on merits.
Procedural History
Civil Suit No.2033 of 1983 decided by Principal Judge, Small Causes Court, Pune; appeal in Civil Appeal No.844 of 1988 allowed by Additional District Judge on 30/10/1991; decree modified by High Court in Writ Petition No.5886 of 1991; revision application admitted on 7/11/1997; dismissed in default on 7/3/2002; restored on 26/3/2002 via Civil Application No.93 of 2003; final hearing on 10/8/2005.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 41 Rule 17
