Court : Jammu and Kashmir
Decided on : Jun-06-1980
Reported in : AIR1981J& K30
kotwal, j.1. this appeal raises an important question of interpretation of order 41, rule 17 (1), c. p. c. which arises in the following circumstances : 2. the appellants filed an appeal against a judgment and decree of district judge, bhadarwah, which in their absence, as well as in the absence of their counsel, was dismissed by a learned single judge of this court, on merits, on 20-12-1974. application under order 41, rule 19 for its re-admission was also dismissed by him on 14-3-1975 by a brief order which runs as under :--'the application is dismissed as no ground for admitting the same is made out.'the appellants then moved an application for leave to file an appeal against the said order dated 14-3-1975, which was granted. hence the appeal.3. mr. parihar's contention in the appeal is twofold. according to him, the learned single judge had no jurisdiction to decide the appeal on merits in the absence of the appellants, or their counsel, as such, order dated 20-12-1974, even if it purports to dispose of the appeal on merits, shall still be construed to have been passed under rule 17 (1) for default, and not on merits, entitling the appellants to make an application under rule 19 for re-admission of the appeal. his next contention is that an application under rule 19 could not have been dismissed in lirnine, and the learned single judge was bound to afford the appellants an opportunity of showing sufficient cause for their absence on 20-12-1974, when he proceeded to .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Gujarat
Decided on : Dec-08-1980
Reported in : AIR1981Guj230; (1981)0GLR665
b.k. mehta, j. 1. this appeal, at the instance of the original plaintiff of civil suit no. 978 of 1975 on the file of the learned city civil judge, ahmedabad, is directed against the order of the learned single judge of this court dismissing the first appeal of the plaintiff being first appeal no. 38 of 1980 against the judgment and order of the city civil judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff, as the learned single judge found himself unable to enter into and adjudicate upon the only and the material issue whether the premises in question were in existence before the bombay provincial municipal corporations act, 1949 became applicable.2. the reason of the inability of the learned city civil judge to enter into and adjudicate upon the material issue was, in his opinion, the observation of the learned single judge of this court in an unreported decision in first appeal no. 828 of 1973 decided on 12/13th july, 1977 by our learned brother n. h. bhatt j.3. at the time of hearing of this appeal, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant, urged that the learned city civil judge was in error and for that matter the learned single judge of this court was also in error in confirming his order that the civil court could not have decided the question, whether the premises in dispute existed before the bombay provincial municipal corporations act, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said act') was made applicable inasmuch as the exercise of the jurisdiction by the .....Tag this Judgment!