2013 (1) TMI 195

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....3. The appellant herein had engaged a lawyer for conducting his appeal before the Delhi High Court. The appeal was admitted and was pending for adjudication. Later, the lawyer of the appellant was elevated as a Judge of the Delhi High Court and hence he returned the files to the appellant. The appellant later engaged another lawyer to conduct the case. However, due to the mistake by the clerk, the Vakalatnama of that advocate could not be filed and hence the name of the newly engaged lawyer did not figure in the cause list. The appeal came up for final hearing on 13-1-2012. Representation was made by a lawyer on behalf of the previous lawyer stating that the case files had already been returned to the party. Consequently, there was no ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e respondent supported the judgment of the High Court contending that the appeal was of the year 2003 and came up for final hearing after a period of nine years, and the High Court was justified in deciding the matter on merits even if there was no appearance on behalf of the appellant. 8. We are, in this case, called upon to consider whether the High Court was justified in deciding the appeal on merits in the absence of any representation on behalf of the appellant, in view of Explanation to Order 41 Rule 17(1) CPA. The said provision is given below for easy reference : "Rule 17. Dismissal of appeal for appellant's default. - (1) Where on the day fixed, or on any other day to which the hearing may be adjourned, the appellant doe....