Can appellate court suspend the sentence upon dismissing the appeal against conviction upto three years?

 No, an appellate court cannot suspend the sentence upon dismissing an appeal against conviction, regardless of whether the sentence is up to three years or any other duration.

Legal Framework Under Section 389 CrPC

Section 389 of the Criminal Procedure Code specifically provides for suspension of sentence pending the appeal, not after its disposal. The provision states that "Pending any appeal by a convicted person, the Appellate Court may, for reasons to be recorded by it in writing, order that the execution of the sentence or order appealed against be suspended".

Print Page

When court should dismiss whole appeal as abated if there is death of one of appellant?

We would think that the appellate court would indeed have to refuse to proceed with the appeal on the basis that allowing the appeal by the Defendants would lead to an appellate decree which is inconsistent with the decree which has become final as against the deceased brother of the Appellant.

19. We would think that the situation cannot be any other different, when we contemplate the converse of the aforesaid scenario which happens to be the factual matrix obtaining in this case. The right which was set up by the Appellant alongwith his late brother was joint. They were members of the joint Hindu family consisting of their late father and which consisted of late Govindareddi, their father Shriram Reddy and Basavareddi, who was none other than the husband of the second Defendant. This is not a case where their claims were distinct claims. 

21. The decree, which the Appellant, if successful in the appeal, would obtain, would be absolutely contrary to the decree which has also attained finality between his late brother and the Defendants. They are mutually irreconcilable, totally inconsistent. Laying one side by side, the only impression would be that one is in the teeth of the other. In one, the suit is dismissed whereas in the other, the suit would have been decreed.

22. The argument that in view of the order passed on 10/09/2001 by which despite the death of late brother of the Appellant, permission to prosecute the appeal was granted by the court there would arise an estoppel against the order being passed holding that the appeal has abated as a whole, cannot be accepted. The impact of death of the late brother of the Appellant qua the proceeding is one arising out of the incompatibility of a decree which has become final with the decree which the Appellant invites the appellate court to pass. In such circumstances, the mere fact that the Appellant was permitted to prosecute the appeal by an interlocutory order would not be sufficient to tide over the legal obstacle posed by the inconsistent decree which emerges as a result of the failure to substitute legal representative of the late brother and the abating of the appeal filed by his late brother. Consequently, we see no merit in the appeal. It is accordingly dismissed.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 4103 of 2008

Decided On: 07.05.2019

Hemareddi  Vs.  Ramachandra Yallappa Hosmani and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Ashok Bhushan and K.M. Joseph, JJ.

Citation: (2019) 6 SCC 756

Print Page

Whether dismissal of appeal due to rejection of application for condonation of delay is decree?

 The question was considered in extenso by a Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in Thambi v. Mathew MANU/KE/0010/1988 . Therein, after referring to the relevant decisions on the question it was held that an appeal presented out of time was nevertheless an appeal in the eye of law for all purposes and an order dismissing the appeal was a decree that could be the subject of a second appeal. It was also held that Rule 3A of Order XLI introduced by Amendment Act 104 of 1976 to the Code, did not in any way affect that principle. An appeal registered under Rule 9 of Order XLI of the Code had to be disposed of according to law and a dismissal of an appeal for the reason of delay in its presentation, after the dismissal of an application for condoning the delay, is in substance and effect a confirmation of the decree appealed against. Thus, the position that emerges on a survey of the authorities is that an appeal filed along with an application for condoning the delay in filing that appeal when dismissed on the refusal to condone the delay is nevertheless a decision in the appeal.

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeal No. 5550 of 2004

Decided On: 04.11.2004

Shyam Sundar Sarma Vs. Pannalal Jaiswal and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

R.C. Lahoti, C.J., G.P. Mathur and P.K. Balasubramanyan, JJ.

Print Page

Whether court should dismiss appeal in entirety if there is death of some of defendants?

 Order 22 Rule 4, CPC lays down that where within the time
limited by law, no application is made to implead the legal
representatives of a deceased defendant, the suit shall abate as
against a deceased defendant. This rule does not provide that by
the omission to implead the legal representative of a defendant,
the suit will abate as a whole. If the interests of the codefendants
are separate, as in the case of coowners,
the suit will
abate only as regards the particular interest of the deceased
party. In such a situation, the question of the abatement of the
appeal in its entirety that has arisen in this case depends upon
general principles. If the case is of such a nature that the
absence of the legal representatives of the deceased respondent
prevents the court from hearing the appeal as against the other
respondents, then the appeal abates in toto. Otherwise, the
abatement takes place only in respect of the interest of the
respondent who has died. The test often adopted in such cases
is whether in the event of the appeal being allowed as against the
remaining respondents there would or would not be two
contradictory decrees in the same suit with respect to the same

subject matter. The court cannot be called upon to make two
inconsistent decrees about the same property, and in order to
avoid conflicting decrees the court has no alternative but to
dismiss the appeal as a whole. If on the other hand, the success
of the appeal would not lead to conflicting decrees, then there is
no valid reason why the court should not hear the appeal and
adjudicate upon the dispute between the parties. In the matter
on hand, the absence of certain defendants who have been
deleted from the array of parties along with the absence of legal
representatives of a number of deceased defendants will prevent
the court from hearing the appeals as against the other
defendants. We say so because in the event of these appeals
being allowed as against the remaining defendants, there would
be two contradictory decrees in the same suit in respect of the
same subject matter. One decree would be in favour of the
defendants who are deleted or dead and whose legal
representatives have not been brought on record; while the other
decree would be against the defendants who are still on record in
respect of the same subject matter. The subject matter in the
suit is the validity of the two Wills. The Courts including the
Division Bench of the High Court have consistently held that the

two Wills are proved, and thus Veeraswamy being the beneficiary
under the two Wills had become the absolute owner of the suit
properties in question. Such decree has attained finality in favour
of the defendants who are either deleted or dead and whose legal
representatives have not been brought on record. In case these
appeals are allowed in respect of the other defendants, the decree
to be passed by this Court in these appeals would definitely
conflict with the decree already passed in favour of the other
defendants. As mentioned supra, the Court cannot be called
upon to make two inconsistent decrees about the same subject
matter. In order to avoid conflicting decrees, the Court has no
alternative but to dismiss the appeals in their entirety (see the
judgment of this Court in the case of Shahazada Bi vs. Halimabi,
(2004) 7 SCC 354).

REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 43804382
OF 2016

SUNKARA LAKSHMINARASAMMA  Vs SAGI SUBBA RAJU & OTHERS ETC
MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR, J.
Dated:NOVEMBER 28, 2018.

Print Page

When appeal can be dismissed for non joinder of persons who were parties before lower court?

 Perusal of the said grounds demonstrates that they directly concern defendants in the pending suit who have not been made parties to the appeal. Therefore, when the appellate Court is called upon to pronounce upon such grounds and contentions connected therewith that would be raised on behalf of the respondent, findings would be rendered by the appellate Court behind the back of defendants who have not been made parties in the appeal. This cannot be countenanced as no Court can pass orders or make observations and render findings against parties who are not before it, particularly when they are parties in the main suit and proceedings pending before the trial Court and yet they have not been made parties in the appeal. The appellate Court would necessarily be called upon to analyze the entire chain of events leading to the sale-deed dated 16.12.2015 and Deed of Assignment dated 07.04.2016 executed in the present case, which involves not only the applicants (defendant Nos. 5 to 8), but also all other defendants who are involved at one stage or the other in such chain of events. The appellate Court would also be called upon to render prima facie findings not only on such chain of events but also on the claims made by the respondent that earlier proceedings in civil suits filed between the defendants inter se and orders passed therein were based on collusion and fraud. Any findings rendered by the appellate Court on such serious issues, even if prima facie in nature as appeal is against rejection of temporary injunction application, cannot be passed in the absence of all the defendants being parties to the appeal. The appellate Court lost sight of this vital aspect while passing the impugned order and rejecting the application of the applicants only on the ground that in the temporary injunction application, relief was sought by the respondent only against the applicants herein.

15. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the applicants on the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts mentioned above, is appropriate. In its judgment, in the case of Ch. Surat Singh (dead) and others v. Manohar Lal and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the contention that a particular person had no interest in the suit premises could not be gone into in his absence and that therefore, such appeal in which the said person was not a party deserved to be dismissed. On the same lines, Full Bench of Kerala High Court in the case of Ammukutty Amma and another v. Madhavi Amma (supra) has held that in a situation where necessary parties were left out and not made parties in an appeal, such appeal deserved to be dismissed and the Court could not exercise power under Order 41 Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure to permit those not made parties to the appeal to be added as parties. The Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Saraswatibai v. Durga Sahai and others (supra) has held that when a lis was lifted from the trial Court to the first appellate Court, parties who were necessary to the suit have also to be regarded as parties necessary to the appeal preferred against the judgment and decree rendered therein. 

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (NAGPUR BENCH)

Civil Revision Application (CRA) No. 106 of 2017

Decided On: 13.04.2018

Gopal Narayandasji Panpaliya  Vs.  Riyaj Patel

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

Manish Pitale, J.

Citation: 2018(6) MHLJ 114

Print Page

Whether Criminal Appeal can be dismissed for non compliance of interim order passed in said proceeding?

Since the applicant did not deposit the amount of Rs. 1,00,000/- within the stipulated period, subject to which the execution of the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court was suspended, the said interim order stood automatically vacated as a result of which the applicant was liable to be taken in custody so as to serve the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. Nevertheless, the applicant was having every right to prosecute his appeal on merits even by remaining behind the bars. The right of the applicant to agitate the points raised by him in the appeal, in exception to the impugned judgment, was intact, and could not have been taken away by the Court for non fulfillment of the condition imposed while suspending the execution of the sentence imposed upon him by the trial Court. The condition so imposed by the Court was only for suspension of execution of the sentence during pendency of the said appeal, and not for hearing the appeal. The learned Sessions Judge, thus, must have heard the appeal on merits and could not have dismissed the same for non compliance of the interim order by the appellant before him. The impugned order, therefore, deserves to be set aside.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Criminal Revision Application No. 251 of 2017 and Criminal Application No. 5513/2017 in Cri. R.A. No. 251/2017

Decided On: 17.11.2017

 Motiram Deoram Patil Vs. Gulabrao Jagannath Patil and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

P.R. Bora, J.

Citation: 2018(5) MHLJ 345

Print Page

Whether appellate court can decide appeal on merit if both parties are absent?

We find from the record that the High Court decided the appeal in the absence of both parties. In other words, when  the appeal was called on for hearing, neither the counsel for the appellant nor the counsel for the respondent was present.

17) In such situation, provisions of Order 41 Rule 17 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 got attracted and, therefore, the High Court should have taken recourse to the powers under Order 41 Rule 17 for passing appropriate orders as contemplated in Rule 17. Indeed the explanation appended to Rule 17 in clear terms provides that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on merits.

18) In any event, the dismissal of appeal being essentially under Order 41 Rule 17, the appellant herein should have taken recourse to the remedy available under Order 41 Rule 19 by filing application to the High Court praying therein for readmission of their appeal by making out the sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date when the appeal was listed for hearing instead of filing this appeal against the impugned order before this Court.

Reportable

Supreme Court - Daily Orders

Navniraman Development ... vs Divisional Commissioner And ... on 5 July, 2017

Citation:(2017)8 SCC 603

Print Page

Whether criminal appeal can be dismissed in default?

It is seen that the learned Judge has dismissed the appeal for
default. It means the conviction and sentence are confirmed without a
hearing. It is not a merit disposal. A suit can be dismissed for default. But
not a criminal appeal. So, the impugned judgment passed by the learned I
Additional Sessions Judge is vitiated.

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT               

DATED : 13.06.2016  

CORAM   
 DR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS            

C.R.L.RC(MD) No.190 of 2016  
and Crl.M.P.(MD) No.2672 of 2016 

Kalaiselvi  Vs    Sivasubramanian                               

Print Page

When high court should not dismiss appeal in limine?

 As a matter of fact, having regard to the nature
of controversy involved in the suit and the issues
arising in the case, the questions raised in the
second appeal did constitute substantial questions
of law within the meaning of Section 100 of the
Code.
14) Indeed, in our considered view, the questions,
viz., whether the suit seeking a declaration that the
demand of House Tax raised under the Act is
maintainable, whether such suit is barred and, if
so, by virtue of which provision of the Act, whether
plaintiff has any alternative statutory remedy
available under the Act for adjudication of his
grievance and, if so, which is that remedy, and
lastly, whether the plaintiff has properly valued the
suit and, if so, whether they have paid the proper
Court fees on the reliefs claimed in the suit were

legal questions arising in the appeal and involved
jurisdictional issues requiring adjudication on
merits in accordance with law. The High Court
unfortunately did not examine any of these issues
much less in its proper perspective in the light of
relevant provisions of the Act governing the
controversy.
15) The High Court thus, in our view, committed
jurisdictional error when it dismissed the second
appeal in limine. We cannot countenance the
approach of the High Court.
 REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL No.1182 OF 2007
Faridabad Complex
Administration 
V
M/s Iron Master India (P) Ltd. 
Citation: (2017) 4 SCC 136

Print Page

Whether first appeal can be dismissed in limine?

As rightly argued by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the High Court should not have dismissed
the appeal in limine but in the first instance should

have admitted the appeal and then decided finally
after serving notice of the appeal on the respondents.
Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 920 OF 2008
Union of India
V
K.V. Lakshman & Ors. 

Print Page

Whether court can decide appeal on merit if appellant remains absent?

The Legislature, therefore, in its wisdom, felt that it should clarify the position beyond doubt. Consequently, Explanation to sub-rule (1) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC was added by Act 104 of 1976, making it explicit that nothing in sub- rule (1) of Rule 17 of Order 41 CPC should be construed as empowering the appellate court to dismiss the appeal on merits where the appellant remained absent or left un-represented on the day fixed for hearing the appeal. The reason for introduction of such an explanation is due to the fact that it gives an opportunity to the appellant to convince the appellate court that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. Such an opportunity is lost, if the courts decide the appeal on merits in absence of the counsel for the appellant.

We may, in this connection, refer to a judgment of this Court in Abdur Rahman and Others v. Athifa Begum and Others (1996) 6 SCC 62, wherein the scope of explanation to Rule 17(1) of Order 41 CPC came up for consideration. While interpreting the said provision, this 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. We also endorse that view.

Reportable

Supreme Court of India

Ghanshyam Das Gupta vs Makhan Lal on 21 August, 2012

Bench: K.S. Radhakrishnan, Dipak Misra

Citation:2013(1) MHLJ 16 SC

Print Page

Whether court can dismiss appeal filed by party on ground that appeal filed by non party is already dismissed?

The High Court has while dismissing the application for

condonation of delay made by the State dismissed even the

appeal preferred by the appellants in RFA No.806 of 2000

after obtaining the leave of the Court. While doing so the

High Court has not gone into the merits of the controversy

and has simply declined to interfere with the impugned

judgment and decree with the following observations:

“In view of the State Government having filed an

appeal in respect of the very judgment and decree,

the appeal in RFA 806/2000 would not merit

consideration and accordingly rejected.”

10. We are, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the

case, are of the opinion that the High Court was not correct

in dismissing RFA No.806 of 2000 summarily as it has done.

Whether or not an appeal was maintainable at the instance

of someone who was not a party to the suit was itself a

matter which ought to have engaged the attention of the

High Court. The High Court has not, however, adverted to

that aspect and dismissed the appeal simply because the

appeal preferred by the State had been dismissed. That

apart, since an appeal against the very same judgment and

decree as was challenged in RFA No.296 of 2011 was

already pending before the High Court, the High Court ought

to have taken a more pragmatic view of the matter and

condoned the delay in filing of the said appeal on such terms

as it may it consider it proper. It is no doubt true that the

delay in filing of the State appeal was considerable but given

the circumstances in which the delay had occurred, we are

inclined to condone the same. 

 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10418 OF 2014

(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 19634 of 2012)

The Principal Govt. Pre-University

College & Anr. 

Vs.

Mr. Jambu Kumar Mutha 

Dated:November 20, 2014

Citation:AIR 2015 SC (SUPP)306

Print Page

Whether appeal can be dismissed if appellant fails to make deposit or furnish security?

The submission of the learned counsel for the respondent is that the High Court was right in giving the direction regarding the deposit of Rs 75,000 as per the aforesaid provision and since the appellant has failed to comply with the same the appeal has been rightly directed to be dismissed. We, however, find that the only consequence for non-compliance with the direction given under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI is as provided in Sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of Order XLI which reads as under: "(5) Notwithstanding anything contained in the foregoing sub-rules, where the appellant fails to make the deposit or furnish the security specified in Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1, the Court shall not make an order staying the execution of the decree."

8. This would mean that non-compliance with the direction given regarding deposit under Sub-rule (3) of Rule 1 of Order XLI would result in the Court refusing to stay the execution of the decree. In other words, the application for stay of the execution of the decree could be dismissed for such non-compliance but the Court could not give a direction for the dismissal of the appeal itself for such non-compliance.

Supreme Court of India

Kayamuddin Shamsuddin Khan vs State Bank Of India on 19 January, 1995

Equivalent citations: (1998) 8 SCC 676

Bench: S Agrawal, F Uddin

Print Page

Whether appeal against arbitration award can be dismissed on ground of non payment of admitted amount?

At the outset, it may be mentioned that the objection to
the maintainability of the appeal on account of non-payment/
deposit of the admitted liability to the extent of Rs.3.35 Crores,
cannot be accepted. Rule 1(3) of Order XLI of C.P.C. only says
that where the appeal is against the decree for payment of money,
the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may
allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such
security in respect thereof as the Court may think fit. It is difficult
to understand as to how on the basis of this provision, it can be
inferred that unless and until the appellants deposit the amount,
which may, in a given case, be admitted or undisputed, the appeal
cannot be entertained. In the case of Kayamuddin
Shamsudduin Khan Vs. State Bank of India, reported in
(1998)8 SCC 676, while considering the provisions of Order XLI,
Rule 1(3) of C.P.C.(as per the Bombay amendment and Rule 5(5)),
it has been held that non-compliance with the direction given
under Rule 1(3) to deposit the amount, cannot result into
dismissal of the appeal. It is held that it can only result into
dismissal of an application for stay of the execution. In the
present case, there is no direction to deposit any such amount.
Even where there is such a direction which if not complied, will
not result into dismissal of the appeal as such. In view of this, the
objection raised to the maintainability of the appeal has to be
refuted.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
APPEAL UNDER ARBITRATION ACT NO.1 OF 2015
M/S. TRIMURTI EXPORTS,

V/s
M/S. MODELAMA EXPORTS LIMITED

CORAM :- C. V. BHADANG, J.

Pronounced on : 7thAugust, 2015
Citation:2016(4) ALLMR216

Print Page

Whether it is necessary to frame substantial question of law if appeal is dismissed at admission stage?

In our opinion, a substantial question of law is not
required to be framed if the High Court decides to dismiss
the second appeal at an admission stage. Only in a case
where the second appeal is admitted or is decided finally
by allowing the same, a substantial question of law is
required to be framed by the High Court.
NON-REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.13338 OF 2015
 (Arising out of SLP(C)No.541 of 2015)
 HARI NARAYAN BANSAL 
 VS.
 DADA DEV MANDIR PRABANDHAK SABHA
 (BARAH GAON) PALAM 
Citation: 2016(2) ALLMR 477 SC

Print Page

Whether rejection of delay condonation application for filing first appeal amounts to dismissal of first appeal?

This Court in the case of Chandrakant Govind Sutar
.vs. M. K. Associates and another reported in 2003 (1) Mh.L.J.
1011 considered the duty of the Counsel towards his client as well
as duty towards the Court with reference to the Advocates Act as
well as the Civil Procedure Code. Regarding the order passed
below the application for condonation of delay, when such order is
passed at the stage of first appeal, it was specifically observed by
this Court that when application for condonation of delay is
allowed by the subordinate Court, in those cases revision under
Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be available. In
other words, when an order is passed dismissing the application
for condonation of delay in preferring the First Appeal, the
revision application against such order was held not tenable as the
consequence of dismissing the application for condonation of
delay in filing the appeal results in disposing the appeal as time
barred. Therefore, remedy by way of Second Appeal is available
in such cases.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY,
NAGPUR BENCH, AT NAGPUR
SECOND APPEAL NO.128 OF 2013

 Smt.Shewantabai Kashinath Kumbhare Vs Purushottam s/o. Mahadeorao Ambatkar,

CORAM: A.P.BHANGALE, J.
DATED : 3rd February, 2014.
Citation;2015(7) ALLMR425

Print Page

Limitation for filing execution application will arise from date of dismissal of first appeal

The   petitioner   herein,   filed   application 
for   execution   of   the   decree   bearing   Regular 
Darkhast No. 5 of 2004 in the Civil Court, Parali 
Vaijinath   on   20th   December,   2004.   Therefore,   on 
dismissal   of   the   first   appeal   i.e.   23rd   January, 
2002, the said application for execution is filed 

within   limitation.   Therefore,   in   my   opinion,   the 
court below was not   correct in holding that, the 
execution   application   is   not   filed   within 
limitation. In view of the judgment of the Supreme 
Court   in   the   case   of  Chandi   Prasad  (supra),   in 
view   of   the   merger   of   the   decree   of   the   trial 
Court in the decree of the lower appellate Court, 
the   limitation   would   start   running   from   23rd 

January,   2002   and   upon   depositing   deficit   court 
fees as directed by the lower appellate Court. As 
observed   by   the   Supreme   Court   in  Chandi   Prasad 
(supra), it does not matter whether the decree is 
modified   or   merged.   

WRIT PETITION NO.1360 OF 2012
  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY 
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
Somnathappa s/o Nagnathappa Halge,

       VERSUS             
Motilal s/o Govindlal Goud,

CORAM :    S.S. SHINDE, J.
    Citation: 2013(3)ABR47, 2013(3)ALLMR561, 2013(4)BomCR861, 2013(4)MhLj419
       
         PRONOUNCED ON : 08­03­2013 

Print Page

Whether Appeal can be dismissed on merit if appellant remains absent?

 It is clear from the above that whereas appeal can be heard on merits if the respondent does not appear, in case the appellant fails to appear it is to be dismissed in default. Explanation makes it clear that the court is not empowered to dismiss the appeal on the merits of the case. As different consequences are provided, in case the appellant does not appear, in contradistinction to a situation where the respondent fails to appear, as a fortiori, Rule 19 and Rule 21 are also differently worded. Rule 19 deals with re-admission of appeal "dismissed for default", where the appellant does not appear at the time of hearing, Rule 21 talks of "re- hearing of the appeal" when the matter is heard in the absence of the respondent and ex-parte decree made.

In Abdur Rahman case (supra), this Court made it clear that because of non-appearance of the appellants before the High Court, High Court could not have gone into the merits of the case in view of specific course of action that could be chartered (viz. dismissal of the appeal in default above) continued in the explanation to Order XLI Rule 17, CPC and by deciding the appeal of the appellants on merits, in his absence. It was held that the High Court had transgressed its limits in taking into account all the relevant aspects of the matter and dismissing the said appeal on merits, holding that there was no ground to interfere with the decision of the trial court.

Supreme Court of India

Harbans Pershad Jaiswal (D) by LRS. Vs. Urmila Devi Jaiswal (D) by LRS.

[Civil Appeal No.4656/2014 arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No.5875/2007]

   Decided On, 21 April 2014

Print Page