KARUNAKARAN Vs. THANGAMONI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case is filed by the appellants praying that the appeal disposed of by this Court without hearing the counsel for the appellants on 18.1.2000 may be readmitted and heard again. The second appeal stood posted to 18.1.2000 in the list for admission hearing. On that day, this Court on finding that there was no substantial question of law which arose for consideration in the Second Appeal, dismissed the Second Appeal.

(2.) According to the learned counsel appearing for the appellants he was in some other Court in connection with some other case when this Second Appeal was called on for hearing in this Court. That is stated to be the reason for the non appearance of the learned counsel appearing for the appellants when the Second Appeal was taken up for hearing. On going through the judgment of this Court by which the Second Appeal was dismissed, it could be seen that this Court had gone into the question whether there arose any substantial question of law which had to be considered in Second Appeal and that it was after finding that no substantial question of law arose for consideration that the Second Appeal was dismissed.

(3.) The question which has to be considered here is whether the judgment pronounced on 18.1.2000 dismissing the appeal has to be treated as a dismissal of the appeal for default. If the dismissal of the appeal is treated as one for default even if dismissal is on the date on which the appeal stands posted for admission hearing, readmission of the appeal is permissible under O.41, R.19 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the above Rule, it is stated that where an appeal is dismissed under R.11 sub-r.(2), or R.17 or R.18, the appellant may apply to the appellate Court for the readmission of the appeal.