- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Jagtar Singh v. Pargat Singh And Others
Factual and Procedural Background
The special leave petition arose from an order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 19-7-1996 in Civil Revision No. 4233 of 1995. Respondent 1 (the petitioner's elder brother) filed a suit for declaration against the petitioner and three other brothers, seeking a declaration that the decree dated 4-5-1990 was null and void. The Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur decreed the suit on 29-9-1993. The petitioner appealed to the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur; on 15-9-1995 counsel stated that the petitioner did not intend to proceed with the appeal, and the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner challenged that dismissal in revision, and the High Court confirmed it, leading to the present special leave petition.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether counsel was empowered under Order III Rule 4 CPC to withdraw the appeal on the petitioner's behalf.
- Whether an appellate court, after admitting an appeal, must decide it on merits or may dismiss it as withdrawn when the appellant abandons the appeal.
Arguments of the Parties
Petitioner's Arguments
- The petitioner had not authorised counsel to withdraw the appeal.
- Once an appeal is admitted, the court has no power to dismiss it as withdrawn and must decide it on merits by examining the trial court's reasoning and conclusions.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court rejected the petitioner's contention. It held that Order III Rule 4 CPC empowers counsel to continue on record until proceedings are duly terminated, and therefore counsel has power to make a statement (on instructions) to withdraw an appeal. On whether a reasoned merits decision is required after admission of an appeal, the Court held that Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (4) permit a party to abandon a claim wholly or in part, and by operation of Section 107(2) CPC, this principle applies equally to appeals; accordingly, the appellate court has co-extensive power to permit the appellant to give up the appeal wholly or in part. Therefore, even if the appeal was admitted under Order 41 Rule 9, the court can dismiss it as withdrawn without entering into the merits or deciding it under Rule 11. The Court added that if counsel acted against instructions or not in the party's interest, the remedy lies elsewhere; the procedure adopted by the courts below was consistent with the CPC, and no illegality was found in the order of the Additional District Judge as confirmed by the High Court.
Holding and Implications
DISMISSED: The special leave petition was dismissed, with liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law.
The direct effect is that the dismissal of the petitioner's appeal as withdrawn (and the High Court's confirmation in revision) stands. The Court indicated that any grievance about counsel acting contrary to instructions must be pursued through another remedy, and the decision sets out no broader implications beyond applying the relevant CPC provisions to uphold the procedure followed.
Order
1. This special leave petition arises from the order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana made on 19-7-1996 in Civil Revision No. 4233 of 1995.
2. Respondent 1, elder brother of the petitioner filed the suit for declaration against the petitioner and three brothers that the decree dated 4-5-1990 was null and void which was decreed by the Subordinate Judge, Hoshiarpur on 29-9-1993. The petitioner has filed an appeal in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur. The counsel made a statement on 15-9-1995 that the petitioner did not intend to proceed with the appeal. On the basis thereof, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The petitioner challenged the order of the appellate court in the revision. The High Court confirmed the same in the impugned order. Thus, this special leave petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the petitioner had not authorised the counsel to withdraw the appeal. The Court after admitting the appeal has no power to dismiss the same as withdrawn except to decide the matter on merits considering the legality of the reasoning of the trial court and the conclusions either agreeing or disagreeing with it. We find no force in the contention. Order III Rule 4 CPC empowers the counsel to continue on record until the proceedings in the suit are duly terminated. The counsel, therefore, has power to make a statement on instructions from the party to withdraw the appeal. The question then is whether the court is required to pass a reasoned order on merits against the decree appealed from the decision of the Court of the Subordinate Judge? Order 23 Rules 1(1) and (4) give power to the party to abandon the claim filed in the suit wholly or in part. By operation of Section 107(2) of the CPC, it equally applies to the appeal and the appellate court has co-extensive power to permit the appellant to give up his appeal against the respondent either as a whole or part of the relief. As a consequence, though the appeal was admitted under Order 41 Rule 9, necessarily the Court has the power to dismiss the appeal as withdrawn without going into the merits of the matter and deciding it under Rule 11 thereof.
4. Accordingly, we hold that the action taken by the counsel is consistent with the power he had under Order III Rule 4 CPC. If really the counsel has not acted in the interest of the party or against the instructions of the party, the necessary remedy is elsewhere and the procedure adopted by the court below is consistent with the provisions of CPC. We do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Additional District Judge as confirmed by the High Court in the revision.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed giving liberty to the petitioner to proceed in accordance with law.
Alert