THAKUR SUKHPAL SINGH versus THAKUR KALYAN SINGH

THAKUR SUKHPAL SINGH versus THAKUR KALYAN SINGH

Where the appellant appears but does not address the court, the appellate court is not bound to decide the appeal on merits or peruse the record; it may dismiss the appeal for default of proof, and need not supply points for determination or reasons under Order XLI Rule 31, CPC, unless points are actually raised by the appellant.

Parties
Appellant: Thakur Sukhpal Singh; Respondent: Thakur Kalyan Singh
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
02 May 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of High Court of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Appellate Procedure, Dismissal for Default, Refusal of Adjournment, Obligations of Appellate Court
Civil Procedure Appellate Procedure Dismissal for Default Refusal of Adjournment Obligations of Appellate Court

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thakur Sukhpal Singh

Appellant

Thakur Kalyan Singh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal (by Special Leave) / Appeal From Judgment and Decree of High Court of Madhya Bharat, Gwalior

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellate Court is bound to decide an appeal on merits based on the record when the appellant appears but does not address the Court.
  2. 2 Whether refusal of adjournment by the High Court was correct in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

Where the appellant appears but does not address the court, the appellate court is not bound to decide the appeal on merits or peruse the record; it may dismiss the appeal for default of proof, and need not supply points for determination or reasons under Order XLI Rule 31, CPC, unless points are actually raised by the appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Parties at liberty to lead further evidence on matters remanded for reconsideration at their discretion (per curiam).
  • Each party to bear their own costs (per curiam majority).