Appellate hearing requires argument; court need not search the record, and adjournment refusal stood absent arbitrariness.

Under Order XLI CPC, an appellate court is not required to decide an appeal on merits by independently searching the record when the appellant appears but advances no argument; the memorandum of appeal does not replace hearing, and a reasoned appellate judgment is unnecessary where nothing is submitted for decision. Refusal of adjournment is a matter of judicial discretion and will not be interfered with absent arbitrariness or injustice; on the facts, the majority found no denial of justice, while the dissent would have remanded the matter because the refusal to grant time to engage counsel caused prejudice.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellate court was bound to decide the appeal on merits by examining the record when the appellant appeared but did not address the court. (ii) Whether refusal of the appellant's request for adjournment warranted interference.

Issue (i): Whether the appellate court was bound to decide the appeal on merits by examining the record when the appellant appeared but did not address the court.

Analysis: The procedural scheme of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the appellant to be heard in support of the appeal and contemplates points for determination and reasons only when the appellant has actually raised contentions for consideration. The memorandum of appeal cannot substitute for arguments at hearing, and the appellate court is not required to search the record and formulate the appellant's case for him. The requirement of a reasoned appellate judgment does not arise where the appellant submits nothing for decision.

Conclusion: The appellate court was not bound to decide the appeal on merits merely by perusing the record when the appellant did not address the court.

Issue (ii): Whether refusal of the appellant's request for adjournment warranted interference.

Analysis: Grant of adjournment lies in judicial discretion and is ordinarily not interfered with in special leave jurisdiction unless the discretion is shown to be arbitrary or capricious. On the facts, the appellant had adequate prior opportunity to instruct counsel and arrange payment, and the refusal of adjournment was supported by reasons. The majority found no denial of justice in the exercise of discretion.

Conclusion: The refusal of adjournment did not justify interference.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the High Court's disposal was sustained, while the dissent would have remanded the matter for a proper hearing.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an appellant appears but advances no argument, the appellate court is not obliged to independently search the record and frame the case for him, and a discretionary refusal of adjournment will not be disturbed absent arbitrariness or injustice.

Dissenting Opinion: Das Gupta, J. would have allowed the appeal and remanded it, holding that in the peculiar circumstances the refusal of time to engage counsel resulted in denial of justice.

---