SK AZGARALI Vs. SK NAZIR BASHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the appellant in the Second Appellant and the revision petitioners in the C.R.Ps. and Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing the respective respondents in all these matters.

(2.) Notice before admission was ordered in all these matters and Sri M. Venkata Narayana, learned counsel representing the respective respondents entered appearance. At the request of the counsel on record, the matters are being disposed of finally.

(3.) Sri V.V.L.N. Sarma, learned counsel representing the appellant in Second Appeal and the revision petitioners in the C.R.Ps would submit that the substantial question of law that would arise for consideration in this Second Appeal is whether the judgment of the appellate court is a judgment in the eye of law and is it not necessary for the appellate Court to appreciate the material on record after hearing the parties. The learned counsel also had pointed out the findings which had been recorded by the appellate Court and further pointed out that at paras 11 and 10 in the respective judgments of the appellate Court, it had been recorded that no arguments had been advanced by the counsel for the appellant and the counsel also would maintain that in the light of the same and in view of the clear language of Order 41, Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'CPC'), the appellate Court could have dismissed the appeals for default but pronouncing judgment on merits cannot be sustained. The counsel also would maintain that, at any rate, instead of giving proper and reasonable opportunity to the appellant and the revision petitioner in the C.R.Ps, disposal of the matters in such a fashion cannot be sustained.