REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

RAMA RAO Appellant

V/S

SHANTIBAI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SOONDERLAL V. GOORPRASAD [REFERRED TO]
MARIANNISSA V. RAMKALPA GOSAIN [REFERRED TO]
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS V.SCHILDKAMP [REFERRED TO]
SUBRAMANIA OTHUVAR V. MUNUSAMIYA PILLAI [REFERRED TO]
PICHAMMA V. SREERAMULU [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL KARIM V. RATILAL GUJARATI [REFERRED TO]
GURUSANTHAYYA V. SETRA VEERAYYA [REFERRED TO]
DAYALJI V. KEDARNATH [REFERRED TO]
MOTILAL JOSHI V. MOHD. SHAFI [REFERRED TO]
BHINKA VS. CHARAN SINGH [REFERRED TO]
MAHADEOLAL KANODIA VS. ADMINISTRATOR GENERAL OF WEST BENGAL [REFERRED TO]
JAISRI SAHU VS. RAJDEWAN DUBEY [REFERRED TO]
UMED VS. RAJ SINGH [REFERRED TO]
DAYAL CHAND VS. SHAM MOHAN [REFERRED TO]
ISMAIL SULEMAN BHAYAT VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [REFERRED TO]
M AGAIAH VS. MOHAMMAD ABDUL KEREEM [REFERRED TO]
TULSIRAM BHAGWANDAS VS. SITARAM SRIGOPAL [REFERRED TO]
PARIKSHIT SAI VS. INDRA BHOI [REFERRED TO]
SAGAR BAI VS. BHAI RATILAL [REFERRED TO]
HINDUSTHAN STEEL VS. PRAKASH CHAND AGARWAL [REFERRED TO]
MADANLAL KANHAIYALAL VS. JAI NARAYAN GENDALAL JATAV [REFERRED TO]
SITA BAI GANGRADE VS. VIDHYAWATI GANGRADE [REFERRED TO]
SHANTABAI VS. CHOKHELAL [REFERRED TO]
GOPI KISAN VS. RAMU [REFERRED TO]
RAM ADHIN VS. RAM BHAROSE [REFERRED TO]
BASALINGAPPA KUSHAPPA KUMBHAR VS. SHIDRAMAPPA IRAPPA SHIVANAGI [REFERRED TO]
BHIORAJ JETHMAL VS. JANARDHAN NAGORAO [REFERRED TO]
Maruti VS. Gangadhar Rao [REFERRED TO]
MANORAMADEVI VS. KANHAIYALAL [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE several questions referred for decision to this Bench require substantially answers to two questions, namely,-

(2.) THE first question is with regard to the comparative scope of Rules 2 and 3 of order 17 which read as under:-

(3.) COURT may proceed notwithstanding either party fails to produce evidence etc. :-- Where any party to a suit to whom time has been granted fails to produce his evidence, or to perform any other act necessary to the further progress of the suit, for which time has been allowed, the Court may, notwithstanding such default proceed to decide the suit forthwith. " (Underlining by us ). The importance of this question lies in the fact that the remedies available against the order depend on whether it is made under Rule 2 or Rule 3. There is not controversy that Rule 3 is comparatively a more stringent provision so that it must be construed strictly with a view to avoid enlargement of its scope beyond the limits fixed by the language used therein. In other words, the construction of these provisions should be such that where it is permissible to treat an order as falling within the ambit of rule 2, it must be taken as being outside the ambit of Rule 3 for the obvious reason that Rule 3 is a more stringent provision requiring a strict construction. The real controversy before us at the hearing based on conflicting views of different High Courts on the point is whether Rule 3 applies to a situation where "the parties or any of them fail to appear" or it is Rule 2 alone which would apply on account of the default in appearance. In our opinion, this is the crux of the matter providing answer to the first main question required to be decided by us.

Click here to view full judgment.

RAMA RAO Vs. SHANTIBAI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address