Patna High Court Dismisses Appeal for Default in Partition Suit Due to Non-Compliance. Appeal Dismissed as Incompetent as Respondents Were Absent Following Non-Compliance with Court Order.

High Court: Patna High Court
  • 0
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The case involved an appeal for partition filed by the appellants against multiple respondents. The appeal was registered as First Appeal No. 205 of 1986 in the Patna High Court. On 12-10-2012, the court noted that no one appeared on behalf of the appellants. The court reviewed the office note indicating that the appeal had been dismissed for default due to the appellants' non-compliance with an order dated 10-07-1992. As a result of the absence of respondents, the court determined that the appeal could not proceed. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed as incompetent, reflecting the importance of compliance with court orders in civil proceedings.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Default - Appeal Dismissed for Non-Compliance - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The appeal was dismissed as the appellants failed to comply with a previous court order, resulting in the absence of respondents. The court held that without the presence of respondents, the appeal could not proceed further, leading to its dismissal as incompetent (Paras 1-2).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the appeal could proceed in the absence of respondents due to non-compliance with a court order.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was dismissed as incompetent due to the absence of respondents and non-compliance with the court's order.

Law Points

  • Dismissal for default
  • Partition suit
  • Non-compliance of court order
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

FA No.205 of 1986

2012-10-12

V. Nath

Narayan Singh

Mathuri Chaudhary, Ganesh Chaudhary, Shatish Chandra Chaudhary, Most. Dhanwanti Kuar, Antu Chaudhary, Sheo Naraya Chaudhary, Sheo Muni Chaudhary, Ram Krit Chaudhary, Kalamuni Chaudhary, Dina Nath Chaudhary

Yugal Kishore Chaudhary, Gopal Chaudhary, Mukhlal Chaudhary, Mosmat Dukhanti Kuar, Ramdhani Chaudhary, Ram Prasad Chaudhary, Sheo Prasad Chaudhary, Gulab Chaudhary, Moti Chaudhary, Mohan Chaudhary, Sanjoy Chaudhary, Raj Kumar Choudhary, Radhe Shyam Choudhary, Mostt. Chintamani, Ramayan Choudhary, Mina Kumari, Jawahar Chaudhary, Arun Choudhary, Vijoy Kumar Choudhary, Ajay Kumar Choudhary, Jai Ram Chaudhary, Muni Kumari, Chuni Kumari, Santosh Kumar Chaudhary, Chhathu Chaudhary, Deo Muni Chaudhary, Ramesh Chaudhary, Jiwan Chaudhary, Jitan Chaudhary, Rama Chaudhary, Vijay Chaudhary

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

Nature of Litigation

Appeal for partition

Remedy Sought

Appellants sought to proceed with the partition suit

Previous Decisions

Appeal dismissed for default due to non-compliance with a prior court order

Issues

Whether the appeal could proceed in the absence of respondents due to non-compliance with a court order

Submissions/Arguments

No appearance by appellants Non-compliance with court order led to dismissal

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed for default as the appellants failed to comply with a court order, resulting in the absence of respondents, which rendered the appeal incompetent.

Judgment Excerpts

This appeal arises out of the suit for partition and as there is no respondents, this appeal cannot proceed further. This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed as incompetent.

Procedural History

The appeal was filed as First Appeal No. 205 of 1986. On 12-10-2012, the court noted the absence of appellants and the dismissal for default due to non-compliance with a prior order.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Remits Appeal for Fresh Disposal on Excise Duty Issue Due to Insufficient Examination of Calendering Process. The court found that the Appellate Tribunal failed to adequately assess whether calendering shared characteristics with other ...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Recalls Earlier Conviction Order and Re-Hears Appeal on Maintainability of Section 378(4) Cr.P.C. in Cheque Dishonour Case. Court Addresses Whether Second Appeal Lies Against Acquittal by First Appellate Court Under Negotiable...