SARWAN SINGH v. KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS

Citation: [2007] 4 S.C.R. 468

Court: Supreme Court of India

Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA

Case summary

SARWAN SINGH v. KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS.pdf

Judgment text

SARWAN SINGH v. 't KISHAN SINGH (DEAD) THR. LRS. AND ORS. MARCH 26, 2007 [DR. ARIJITPASAYAT ANDLOKESHWARSINGHPANTA, JJ. ] Code of Civil Procedure, I908-0rder XL/, Rule I9-Restoration of .... appeal dismissed for default-Scope of-,-Held: Appeal is to be restored since ~~the reasons were indicated for non appearance when matter was taken up and the same are correct-Restoration of appeal cannot be refused merely because the appeal was dismissed on merits, Second Appeal was dismissed in default after making observations on 'I the merits of the case. Application was filed under Order XLI Rule 19 read with section 151 CPC to restore the appeal. Reasons for non-appearance on the date fixed were indicated in the application. High Court dismissed the application. Hence, the present appeal. ,... , -~ Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: In the application for restoration the reasons for non-appealflnce at the time when the matter was taken up had been indicated.

The matter was , fixed for filing ofthe vakalatnama ofthe respondents. There was unintentional absence and the reason for the same was indicated. High Court has no~found the reason indicated to be in any manner incorrect or untrue. Merely because the appeal has been dismissed on merits that could not have been a ground to refuse restoration of the appeal. Thus, the impugned order ofthe High Court ,_ is set aside and the Second Appeal is directed to be restored. [Paras 7 and 8] [469-G-H; 470-A-B, B-C] ~-· CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: CivilAppealNo. 1583 of2007. f ; From the Final Judgment and Order dated 08. 11. 2004 ofthe High Court '• of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CM No. 11092-C of2004 in RSA No. r 4802 of2003. l. - ~ Ajay Majithia, Rajesh Kumar and Dr. Kailash Chand for the Appellant. ~· . + SARWANSINGHv. KTSHANSINGH(DEAD)THR. LRS. {PASAYAT. J. ] 469 Arvind Kumar, Laxmi Arvind and Poonam Prasad for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. l. Leave granted. 2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissing the application to recall the order dismissing the Second Appeal. ~ ,. 3. The background facts in a nutshell are as follows: 4. Appellant filed Second Appeal No. 4802/2003 before the High Court questioning correctness of the order passed by a learned Second Additional District Judge, Kapurthala. By the said order the first Appellate Court affirmed the order of the learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kapurthala. The matter was listed on 8. 11. 2004. On that day there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. The High Court referred to the merits ofthe case and dismissed the appeal noting that none appeared for the appellant. It is to be noted that the appeal was filed by the defendants. ~ . ,. 5.

An application in terms ·of Order XLI Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'Code') read with Section 151 of the Code was filed to restore the appeal for deciding the same on merits. It was indicated in the application for restoration as to why there was non-appearance on the date fixed. In the application it was categorically stated that the matter was listed at item No. 260 before the learned Single Judge. When the matter was called learned counsel for the appellant was arguing another matter before a Bench of Hon'ble the Chief Justice. In the case at hand respondents were yet to put appearance. So the assisting counsel was instructed to attend the .. ; Court to note the next date. By the time the ·assisting counsel reached the t- Court, the matter had already been taken up and dismissed for want of prosecution. It is submitted that the High Court did not.

take note of the aforesaid factual aspects and on the contrary dismissed the application for restoration on the ground that the matter was decided on merits. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that since the matter had been decided on merits there was no scope for recalling the order. ·! " 7. It is to be noted that in the application for restoration the reasons for non appearance at the time when the matter was taken up had been A indicated. It was noted that the matter was fixed for filing of the vakalatnama of the respondents. There was unintentional absence and the reason for the same was indicated. The High Court has not found the reason indicated to be in any manner incorrect or untrue. Merely because the appeal has been dismissed on merits that could not have been a ground to refuse restoration B of the appeal. 8. As rightly contended by learned counsel for the appellant the reason for non appearance when the matter was take11 up had been indicated.

There is no dispute that the factual scenario as projected by the appellant was the correct one. Mere fact that the appeal was dismissed on merits could not have C been a ground to refuse restoration. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order of the High Court and direct restoration of the Second Appeal. 9. The appeals are allowed. There will be no order as to costs. N. J. Appeals allowed. ;. "