THAKUR SUKHPAL SINGH versus THAKUR KALYAN SINGH

Citation: [1963] 2 S.C.R. 733 · Decided: 02-05-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.L. KAPUR

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

2 S.C . .B.. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
733 
~ Parties will be ·at liberty to lead suoh further 
evidence on all mir.tters sent back for reconsidera· 
tion as they· think fit. In the .oiroumstances we 
order parties to bear their own costs. _ 
Appeal allowed. 
THAKUR SUKHPAL~SINGH 
"· 
THAKUR KAtYAN SINGH 
(J. L. KAPUR, K. C. J?As GUPTA and 
RA.GHUBA.R DAYAL, JJ.) 
App.al-Appellant appearing at hearing but not addressing 
court-Diemiesal for default-Legality of-1f Court bound to 
decide appeal on merits after perusal of record-Befueal of ad-
journment-Interference by appellate court-Code of OivilProced• 
. ..; 
ure, 1908 (Art. V of 1908), 0. 41, rr. 16, 30, 31, 32. 
{ 
The appellant's appeal was listed for hearing before the · 
High Court four times during the course of about a year. 
On the last occasion the appellant"s counsel stated that he 
had no instructions. . The appellant who was present asked 
for an adjournment to arrange for the fees and to instruct 
another counsel. The adjournment was refused and upon 
the appellant expressing inability to address the court the 
High Court dismissed the appeal for default. The appellant 
contended that the High Court was bound to dispose of the 
'( appeal on merits ort the material before it. 
Held, that. the High Court had the power to dismiss the 
appeal without considering .the merits. An appellate court 
was bound to consider only the submissions made by the 
appellant and if. no submissions were made by him, it was not 
bound to look tnto the record ; it could simply say that the 
appellant had not urged anything to show that the judgment 
and decree under appeal were wrong. 
· 
-
. Mt. Fakrunisa v. Moulvi lzarue, A. I. R. 1921 P. C. 55. 
rehed on. 
· 
Mathur11 Das v. Narain Das, I. L. R. 1940 All. 220, · 
approved. 
llJrJB 
Bfrla Couon Spg. &: 
W·vg. Mi1ls 
•• 
Woikmen' 
Wtinchoo J. 
1B61 
M•:! B. 
Thdur SuJt:,pal 
~-inth 
v. 
Th kw lfo1'an 
Singh 
11/wba• IJ.,.i J. 
734 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ll963) 
Sangram Singh v. E/.ctiml Tribunal. Kotah, Bhurey Lai 
BayrJ, (19o5) 2 S.C;.R. 1, rcfened to. 
Baldw Prasad v. Kunrcar Bahadur, (1912) I.L.R. 35 All, 
105; /:!yed Mo/,ammadi Husain v. Mt. Chandra, A.l.R. 1937 All. 
284 ; and Barkat Ali v. Gujrat Municipality, A.l.R. 1937 Lah. 
691, not approved. 
Per Kapur and Dayal,JJ.-The High Court was right in 
refusing the application for adjournment. The appellant had 
ample time aud 
opporlunity to instruct hi.I counsel. It 
was within the di.creuon of the High Court to allow or not to 
:.Jlow the adjournment and the Supreme Court ordinarily did 
not interfere with such discrctiOnary orders. 
Per Das Gupta, J.-The 'High Court was wrong in re-
fusing to grant the adjournment. Whtn the counsel engaged 
refused to address the court it\_was next to impossible for the 
client to engage another counsel on the •pot to argue the 
case and impossible for such couoscl to addres.s the Court. 
It is also not reasonable to expect the lay client 10 argue the 
appeal. Though an appellate court sh.mid not lightly inter· 
fc1 c with the discretion exercised by a court in rct-using a 
prayer for adjournment it could interfere if the refusal was 
not in the interests of justice. 
Cxv1L. APPELLATE JurusDICTION : Civil Appea.l 
No. 469 of 1960. 
Appeal by speoia.J leave from the judgment 
and decree dated January 6, 1966, of the former 
High Court of Madhya .Bharat, Gwalior, in Civil 
]first Appeal No. 11 of 1950. 
, 
K. L. Gowin. P. W. Sahasrabudhe and A.G. 
Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant. 
\ 
K. L. Mehta. for the respondent No. I. 
1962. May 2, The Judgment of Kapur and 
Dayal, JJ ., was delivered by Daya.I, J., Das Gupta., 
J., delivered a. separate Judgment. 
RAOHUBAR DAYAL, J.-This appeal, by special 
leave against the decree of the Madhya. Bharat 
High' Court dated January 5, 11166, raises the 
,
• 
r 
2 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
735 
question whether the Appellate Court is bound to 
decide an appeal on merits on the basis of the mate-
rial on record when the appellant appears at the 
hearing but does not address the Court. 
The appellant's first appeal against the res· 
pondents came up for hearing before the High 
Court on January 4, 1955. Mr. Mungre, who was 
the counsel for the appellant, stated that he had· no 
instructions to represent the appellant. The appe-
llant did not deny this fact. 
His application for 
adjournment was rejected. The appellant w~s not 
prepared to address .the Court. The High Court 
therefore dismissed the app

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.