ABDUR RAHMAN & ORS v. ATHIFA BEGUM AND ORS .
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-s-1996-5-391-392
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Order 41 Rule 17 CPC-Appeal-Appellant's counsel absent-High Cowt adverted to merits of the case-Recorded that all relevant aspects of the C matter taken into account and 110 ground available for inteiference with the decision of the Trial Court-On appeal,
Held
High Court ought not have dismissed the appeal on merit~lt has transgressed the limit and hence its order set aside-Matter remitted back to its file for fresh disposal in accord- ance with law. D CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11460 of 1996.
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
. AUGUST 30, 1996
B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.95 of the Karnataka High Court in F.A.R.F.A. No. 476 of 1992. E R.S. Massey Verma and Shakil Ahmed Syed for the Appellants.
S.S. Naganand and R.P. Wadhwani for the Respondents.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered : F Leave granted.
The qualified notice issued to the respondents indicated that this 1 Court proposed to grant leave against the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and on allowing the appeal, was expecting to remit the matter back to the file of the High Court for disposal of the matter on its G merits. The respondents' learned counsel has been confronted with the proposition that though the High Court could have dismissed the appeal in default in the absence of the appellants' counsel, it could . not have adverted to the merits of the case. Here, the High Court has recorded that all relevant aspects of the matter have been taken into account in order to H 391
p. 392
A hold that there was no available ground for interference with the decision of the Trial Court. This was an exercise with which the High Court should have been well-advised not to indulge in at the stage or Order 41 Rule 17 CPC. The Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPC says that nothing in this sub-rule shall be construed as empowering the Court to dismiss the appeal on the merits. The High Court havi_ng transgressed that limit, we B have therefore no option but to allow the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order of the High Court and put the matter back to its file for fresh disposal in accordance with law. Ordered accordingly. No costs.
G.N. Appeal allowed.
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0