S K GOUDU Vs. KARIAPPAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE above appeal has been filed against an order of the Additional Special Judge, Dharmapuri at Krishnagiri, dated 3-7-1981, in I.A. No. 41 of 1980 in A.S. No. 20 of 1979, whereunder the Court below dismissed a petition filed under Order 41, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which in turn, was to restore the appeal which was dismissed for default on 7-4-1980, the default being of the non-filling of the printed copy of the judgment of the trial Court.

(2.) THE facts are not in controversy. A.S. No. 20 of 1979 was filed before the lower appellate court against the judgment and decree of the trial Court dated 11-8-1977. THE appeal was filed on 28-11-78 in time, with a certified copy of the judgment and decree of the trial Court. Having regard to the provisions of the Order 41, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Rule 135 (1) of the Civil Rules of Practice printed copies of the judgement are also required to be filed in cases where the judgment under iappeal contains more than 700 words. THE lower appellate court, on an application made by the appellant, appears to have dispensed with the production of the printed copy (for the present) on the ground that he had applied for printed copies and it may take some time to get them. As misfortune could befall on him, not only the application said to have been filed was dismissed, but also a second application for the printed copies of judgements also appears to have been dismissed. As a result, when the appeal came up before the lower appellate court for hearing, it thought fit to dismiss the appeal on account of the default on the part of the appellant in not producing the required number of printed copies of judgment.

(3.) IN yet another decision, reported in Smt. Dippo v. Wassan Singh 2 , the Court below rejected an appeal presented informa pauperis on the ground that the party has not presented it in person, even though the appeal has been earlier admitted and enter tained. The observations of mine are not meant to understood as though that even rules or procedure on essential matters have to be ignored or given a go-by. So far as the present case is concerned, the certified copies of the judgment and decree were before the Court below, and even if the non-production of printed copies of judgment is a defect, that nave been waived, and in the interest of justice, the lower appellate court could have disposed of the appeal on merits. IN my view, the lower appellate court has taken a very harsh view of the matter, and in the process, denied itself the reputation to do justice to a litigant before it. The approach as well as the conclusions of the lower appellate court cannot be approved by this Court. The lower appellate Court, in my view failed to exercise its jurisdiction or discretion in a reasonable manner. Conse quently, the appeal is allowed, the order of the lower appellate court is set aside and A.S. No. 20 of 1979 is directed to be restored on file and disposed of on merits. Having regard to the long lapse of time, the lower appellate court is directed to dispose of the appeal within three months from the date of receipt of the records from this Court.