Skip to content


Basayya Ayappa Sarghnachayar Vs. Allayya Maharudrayya Ganachari - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMumbai
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 101 of 1924
Judge
Reported inAIR1925Bom328; 87Ind.Cas.710
AppellantBasayya Ayappa Sarghnachayar
RespondentAllayya Maharudrayya Ganachari
Excerpt:
.....court to pass is one under order xvii, rule 2. it is not competent to the court to proceed under rule 3 of the order and to decide the suit on its merits). - maharashtra scheduled castes, scheduled tribes, de-notified tribes (vimukta jatis), nomadic tribes, other backward classes and special backward category (regulation of issuance and verification of) caste certificate act (23 of 2001), sections 6 & 10: [s.b. mhase, a.p. deshpande & p.b. varale, jj] caste certificate petitioner seeking appointment against the post reserved for member of schedule tribe his caste certificate was invalidated subsequently held, his appointment would not be protected. the observations/directions issued by supreme court in para 36 of judgment in the case of state v millind reported in 2001 91) mah. lj..........cause for his non-attendance on november 30. but if the proper order had been made by the trial judge under order xvii, rule 2, it would be the trial judge who would have to decide on the application to restore the suit to the board, whether the plaintiff had sufficient cause for his non-attendance; so we do not think that the decision of the district judge on that question is one which was competent. as the initial order was wrong, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the question of his non-appearance by the trial court. we think, therefore, that the suit should be restored to the board on the appellant's first paying all costs which have been incurred by the 1st defendant up to date.3. these costs should be paid within one month after the proceedings have been returned.....
Judgment:

Macleod C.J.

1. This suit was originally fixed before the trial Court for hearing on November 2, 1922. On that date the plaintiffs pleader asked for an adjournment undertaking to produce his witnesses without summonses. The Court granted an adjournment till November 30, 1922. On November 30, the case was called on but the plaintiff was absent. The Court instead of making an order under Order XVII, Rule 2, proceeded under Rule 3 to decide the suit and rejected the plaintiff's claim with costs.

2. On appeal the District Judge was of opinion that that order was wrong, but he considered the appeal before him on its merits holding that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient cause for his non-attendance on November 30. But if the proper order had been made by the trial Judge under Order XVII, Rule 2, it would be the trial Judge who would have to decide on the application to restore the suit to the board, whether the plaintiff had sufficient cause for his non-attendance; so we do not think that the decision of the District Judge on that question is one which was competent. As the initial order was wrong, the appellant was entitled to be heard on the question of his non-appearance by the trial Court. We think, therefore, that the suit should be restored to the board on the appellant's first paying all costs which have been incurred by the 1st defendant up to date.

3. These costs should be paid within one month after the proceedings have been returned to the trial Court.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //