CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench

Govindaraju and Another vs Lala

Madras High Court · Decided on 5 August 1958 · Citation: AIR 1959 Mad 183 : (1958) 2 MLJ 515

HON’BLE JUDGES
Ramaswami, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) — Order 41 Rule 19(1), 115 · Madras High Court Appellate Side Rules, 1965 — Rule 41B
CASE NUMBER
Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 3807 of 1958
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

19 paragraphs · 394 words

Ramaswami, J.—The point lor determination is whether a civil revision petition which has been dismissed for default of appearance can be

restored. So far as this High Court is concerned there are two lines of decision.

2.

Byers, J. in A. Ramamurthi Iyer and Others Vs. T.A. Meenakshisundarammal and Another, following the decision of Burn, J. in Khizar

Muhammad v. Abdul Razack, 1941 2 Mad LJ (NRC) 88 came to the conclusion that this court has no jurisdiction to restore to file civil revision

petitions which have been dismissed for default of appearance mainly on the ground that O. IX R. 9 C. P. C. applies only to suits and not to civil

revision petitions. Byers, J. also followed his own decision in P. Subbamma Vs. Ch. Venkata Reddy, . This is one line of decisions.

3.

Kunhi Raman, J. in C. M. P. No. 5421 of 11942 and Wadsworth, J. in C. M. P. No. 2962 of 1943 have taken the view, that this Court has

powers to restore such revision petitions.

4.

On account of the divergence of opinion the matter was taken up and the Rules Committee was consulted.

5.

The High Court drafted rule 41-B to be added to Chap. IV of Part II of the Appellate Side Rules which was in these terms:

41-B: The provisions of Rules 11(2), 17, 18 19 and 21 of order XLI of the CPC shall apply Mutatis Mutandis to civil revision petitions.

This rule was finally added on 31-7-1946.

The combined effect of Rule 41-B of the Appellate Side Rules and Order 41 Rule 19(1) of the CPC is to invest the High Court with power to

restore a civil '' revision petition which has been dismissed for default where it is proved that the petitioner was prevented by sufficient cause from

appearing when the petition was called on for hearing.

6.

Having come to the conclusion that I have got jurisdiction to restore a civil revision petition dismissed for default of appearance the next point for

determination is whether in the circumstances the civil revision petition should be restored to file. I hold that in the present case enough

circumstances have been shown for restoration of the civil revision petition dismissed for default. Ordered accordingly, C. R. P. 1540 of 1956 will

be restored to file and heard in the usual course.