9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Compliance with Order 41, Rule 31 of the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C.) in the judgment of the lower Appellate Court. Analysis: The judgment in question pertains to an appeal where the appellant challenged the judgment of the Principal Civil Judge at Tumkur. The appellant's counsel, noted as HSRS, did not present any arguments during the hearing before the lower Appellate Court. Instead, the counsel requested the Court to proceed to judgment based on the grounds of appeal submitted. The Court, in a brief judgment, dismissed the appeal stating that no arguments were advanced by the appellant in support of the grounds urged. The appellant contended that the judgment did not conform with Order 41, Rule 31 of the C.P.C., which requires the Court to consider arguments before reaching a decision. The High Court analyzed the situation and referred to a Supreme Court judgment in Thakur Sukhpal Singh v. Thakur Kalyan Singh, [1963] 2 SCR 733, which established that the Appellate Court is not obligated to decide an appeal on merits if the appellant fails to address the Court during the hearing. The Supreme Court emphasized that it is the duty of the appellant to demonstrate the errors in the judgment under appeal and provide reasons to support the appeal. If the appellant fails to do so, the Appellate Court can dismiss the appeal for default. The High Court, relying on this authoritative pronouncement, concluded that the lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal as no arguments were presented by the appellant's counsel. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the decision of the lower Appellate Court. The judgment highlights the importance of presenting arguments and reasons in support of an appeal to enable the Court to consider the merits of the case fully. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of the appeal for default, as established by legal precedents.
|
