Skip to content


Jawahir Singh and anr. Vs. Debi Singh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All119
AppellantJawahir Singh and anr.
RespondentDebi Singh and ors.
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, sections 556, 558, 588, 622 - dismissal of appeal 'for default of prosecution,' appellant and his pleaders being present--refusal to reinstate appeal--remedy of appellant--revision. - - that, however, clearly was not so......and we are of opinion that it must be allowed. it was contended for the opposite party that the appeal was dismissed on its merits. that, however, clearly was not so. from the terms of the order of the court below on the application for re-admission of the appeal, and from the proceedings which then took place, it is evident that the subordinate judge intended to pass, and did pass, and believed he was passing, an order under section 556 by which he dismissed the appeal for default. the words be used were--'for default of prosecution,'--but, as the appellant and his pleaders were present, and as one of the pleaders had addressed the court, though, no doubt, he went to another court soon after the commencement of his argument and did not return, and the other pleader refused to address.....
Judgment:

Blair and Burkitt, JJ.

1. This case came before us at first as an appeal under Section 588 of the Code of Civil Procedure from an order passed under Section 558 refusing to readmit an appeal which had been dismissed under Section 556. At the hearing, however, it became immediately evident that the appeal could not be supported, as it was shown that the appellant and his pleaders were present when the appeal was called on for hearing in the lower Court. We therefore dismissed the appeal, and at the same time we allowed an application to be put in by the appellant under Section 622 of the Code for revision of the order below by which his appeal had been dismissed. That application having been admitted has now been heard, and we are of opinion that it must be allowed. It was contended for the opposite party that the appeal was dismissed on its merits. That, however, clearly was not so. From the terms of the order of the Court below on the application for re-admission of the appeal, and from the proceedings which then took place, it is evident that the Subordinate Judge intended to pass, and did pass, and believed he was passing, an order under Section 556 by which he dismissed the appeal for default. The words be used were--'for default of prosecution,'--but, as the appellant and his pleaders were present, and as one of the pleaders had addressed the Court, though, no doubt, he went to another Court soon after the commencement of his argument and did not return, and the other pleader refused to address the Court, we are of opinion that the Court below was wrong and acted illegally and with material irregularity in dismissing the appeal for default under Section 556.

2. We therefore allow this application, and, setting aside the order of the lower Court dismissing the appeal for default, we direct the record to be returned to the Court below with instructions to pass a legal order, namely, one simply dismissing the appeal without adding the words 'for default' or 'for default of prosecution.' We make no order as to costs;


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