K.N. Seth, J.
1. This revision was listed on 25-9-1979 but was passed over on the illness slip of the learned counsel. When it was listed on 27-9-1979 it was passed over on the illness slip of Sri Pandey. The case was then listed on 6-10-1979 and Sri Pandey again sent an illness slip. The case waspassed over on that date but it was directed to be listed peremptorily on 10-10-1979. It was listed peremptorily on that date but was left out. The case was then listed on 12-10-1979. On this date Sri R. N. Pandey again sent an illness slip. Since the case was listed peremptorily, it was not adjourned on the illness slip of the learned counsel. As no one was present to press the revision, it was dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. The present application has been made for recalling the order dated 20-10-1974 and restoring the revision and deciding it on merits. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the revision could not be dismissed for default on the ground that no one appeared to press the revision. Reliance was placed on the decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Mohammad Sajed Quresi v. Mst. Sabira (1979 All WC 775). It is apparent that the attention of the learned Judge was not invited to the relevant provisions of C. P. C. and the decisions of the Supreme Court which were relevant for decision of the controversy. It cannot possible be disputed that the Appellate Court is not bound to decide an appeal on merits and is competent to dismiss the appeal for default. As observed by the Supreme Court in Sukhpal Singh v. Kalyan Singh (AIR 1963 SC 146) it is the duty of the Appellate Court to hear the appellant in support of the appeal. This, however, does not mean that the Appellate Court cannot decide the appeal if the appellant does not make his submissions to the Court showing that the judgment and decree under appeal were wrong. The Appellate Court is not to force the appellant to address it It can, at best afford him an opportunity to address it. If the appellant does not avail of that opportunity the Appellate Court can decide the appeal and dismiss it without entering into the merits of the case.
3. The nature of the appellate and revisional jurisdictions are basically the same. The Supreme Court in Shankar Ramchandra v. Krishnaji Dattatraya (AIR 1970 SC 1) observed that the right of appeal is one of entering a superior Court and invoking its aid and interposition to redress the error of the Court below. Two things which are required to constitute appellate jurisdiction are the existence of the relation of superior and inferior Court and the power on the part of the former to review decisions of the latter. When the aid of the High Court is invoked on the revisional side it is done because it is a superior Court and it can interfere for the purpose of rectifying the error of the Court below. Section 115 ofthe Civil P. C. circumscribes the limits of that jurisdiction but the jurisdiction which is being exercised is a part of the general appellate jurisdiction of the High Court as a superior Court.
4. It is true that the Code of Civil Procedure does not specifically provide that a revision may be dismissed for default but since the nature of the revisional jurisdiction is the same as that of the appellate, jurisdiction, I see no reason why the powet to dismiss an appeal for default is not attracted to the case of a revision. Section 141, C. P. C. also provides that the procedure provided in the Code in regard to suits shall be followed, as far as it can be made applicable, in all proceedings in any Court of civil jurisdiction. By virtue of this provision the power to dismiss an appeal in default is available in case of a revision also. While hearing a revision the Court is not bound to enter into the merits of the case when no one appears to press the revision. I am conscious of the fact that a criminal appeal cannot be dismissed for default and it is incumbent on the Court that before passing final order in the appeal it has to peruse the record. It is because of the language of Section 386 of the Cr. P. C. which enjoins that the final order in the appeal shall be passed after the Court has perused the record.
5. The circumstances in which the present revision was dismissed have been set out above. The revision was listed peremptorily. Since no one was present and prepared to press the revision on merit, it was not proper to decide it on merit. In view of the circumstances in which the case was dismissed I see no justification to recall my earlier order. The application is rejected.