9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the appellate court is bound to decide an appeal on merits based on the material on record when the appellant appears but does not address the court. 2. Whether the refusal of the appellant's application for adjournment was justified. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Obligation of the Appellate Court to Decide on Merits: The primary contention raised by the appellant was that the High Court erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the proceedings of the Trial Court and the memorandum of appeal, despite the appellant's failure to address the court. The appellant relied on the provisions of Order XLI, Rules 30, 31, and 32 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) to support this argument. The court examined Order XLI, Rule 16, which outlines the procedure for hearing an appeal. Sub-rule (1) mandates that the appellate court hear the appellant in support of the appeal. However, the court clarified that this does not mean the appellate court is compelled to decide the appeal if the appellant does not present arguments. The appellate court is not obligated to force the appellant to address it and can decide the appeal if the appellant does not avail the opportunity to present his case. Further, the court discussed Rule 32 of Order XLI, which requires the judgment of the appellate court to state the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for the decision. The court emphasized that these requirements are applicable only when points are raised for determination. If the appellant does not raise any points or address the court, the appellate court is not required to independently examine the record and determine the correctness of the judgment under appeal. The court referenced the Privy Council decision in Mi. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi Izarm, which established that it is the appellant's duty to show reasons why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed. The appellate court is not required to find points for determination on its own. The court also cited its previous decision in Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, Bhurey Lal Baya, which emphasized that procedural rules should be construed reasonably and flexibly to facilitate justice. The court concluded that Rule 31 of Order XLI requires the judgment to contain specific particulars only when points are raised by the appellant. Comparing the provisions of the CPC with Section 423 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the court noted that the latter explicitly requires the appellate court to peruse the record before deciding an appeal. In contrast, Rule 30 of Order XLI does not mandate such perusal unless the parties present arguments for consideration. The court reviewed various High Court decisions, including Baldeo Prasad v. Kunwar Bahadur and Syed Mohammadi Husain v. Mt. Chandro, which suggested that the appellate court should decide an appeal on merits even if the appellant does not argue the case. However, the court found these decisions unpersuasive and inconsistent with the provisions of the CPC. Ultimately, the court held that the High Court was not obligated to decide the appeal on merits when the appellant did not address the court. The appellant's failure to present arguments justified the dismissal of the appeal for default of proof. 2. Refusal of Adjournment: The appellant also contended that the High Court erred in rejecting his application for adjournment. The court acknowledged that granting or refusing an adjournment is within the discretion of the court and is not typically a matter for consideration in an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution. The court noted that the appellant's application for adjournment was based on his inability to arrange payment for his counsel's fees. The High Court found that the appellant had sufficient time to instruct his counsel and make necessary arrangements, as the appeal had been pending for nearly a year with multiple hearing dates. The court observed that the appellant's failure to complete instructions to his counsel before the final hearing date justified the High Court's decision to reject the adjournment application. The court concluded that the High Court's exercise of discretion was neither capricious nor arbitrary and did not warrant interference. Separate Judgment by DAS GUPTA, J.: On the main legal question, DAS GUPTA, J. agreed with the majority that the appellate court is not bound to decide an appeal on merits if the appellant does not address the court. However, he expressed a differing view on the refusal of the adjournment. DAS GUPTA, J. argued that the refusal of the appellant's prayer for adjournment resulted in a denial of justice. He emphasized that when a counsel withdraws from a case, it is unreasonable to expect a lay client to argue the appeal personally. Justice required that the appellant be given some time to engage another counsel. In light of these peculiar circumstances, DAS GUPTA, J. would have allowed the appeal and remanded the case to the High Court for a proper hearing. However, in accordance with the majority opinion, the appeal was dismissed with costs.
|
