HANMANTBHAT SHANKARBHAT NARGUND Vs. BASAPPA CHANBASAPPA HASABI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In my opinion, when this appeal was entered on the Court's board as fixed for 15 April 1924, it must be taken that there was in effect an adjournment of the hearing of the appeal to that particular day. The fixing of this notice on the board is no doubt primarily a notice to the appellant's pleader, but it is also accessible to the general public; and that being so, the respondent might thereby get notice that he still had an opportunity of appearing on the 15th. It seems to me that no practice of the Court, such as is relied upon by the District Judge, can avail against the words of Order 41, Rule 16, by which, if the respondent appears of the date to which the hearing may be adjourned he is entitled to be heard. I do not agree with the argument of Mr. Nilkant that the fixing of the notice on the board was merely a matter for the convenience of the Court, and that the respondent not having appeared on the date specified in the notice was not entitled to the benefit of the fixing of the hearing for 15 April. In the case of an appeal permission of the Court is not required for a subsequent appearance, whereas it is required in the case of a suit under Order 9, Rule 7.

(2.) No doubt, Order 41, Rule 5, authorizes a Court saying that, if the respondent has not appeared on the date fixed, the appeal will be heard ex parte; but, having regard to the subsequent Rules 16 and 17, I think it is clear that the Code does not mean that, if he fails to appear on the day so fixed, he has no right to appear at any other date to which the appeal is adjourned. Consequently, it is, in my opinion, shown that the respondent was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on 3 April, if he had wanted to, because the notice fixing the case for 15 April was an intimation that he might appear on that date. In the circumstances, I think the District Judge should have allowed the application to re- hear the appeal, making the respondent pay the costs up to date on account of his omission to appear, as he should have done, on the date fixed in the notice.

(3.) I would, therefore, allow the appeal and direct the lower Court to restore Appeal No. 11 of 1923 to the file and re-hear it after giving the respondent an opportunity of appearing according to law. But the respondent, in the circumstances, should bear the appellants costs in the lower Court. Costs in this Court to be costs in the appeal to be re-heard. Madgavkar, J.