- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Thakur Ji Ram Janki Ji And Another v. Shankar Dayal .
Factual and Procedural Background
The appellant (father) filed a suit for possession against his son (the respondent), alleging that the respondent had forcibly occupied a portion of the appellant’s property. The trial court decreed the suit in favour of the appellant. The respondent’s first appeal was dismissed. However, in second appeal, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the concurrent findings solely on the ground that the trial court had not complied with Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether non-delivery of judgment “on the same day” after proceeding under Order 17 Rule 3 CPC violates Order 17 Rule 3 (particularly clause (a)) and warrants setting aside concurrent findings.
Arguments of the Parties
The opinion does not contain a detailed account of the parties' legal arguments.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the scope of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC, which applies where time has been granted to a party to produce evidence and the party fails to do so, or where there is default in progressing the suit. In such circumstances, the court may: (a) if parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith; or (b) if any party is absent, proceed under Order 17 Rule 2.
The High Court had interpreted clause (a) to require delivery of judgment on the same day; because judgment was delivered on another day, it held Order 17 violated. The Court rejected this interpretation as “entirely erroneous,” holding that Order 17 Rule 3 is enabling rather than mandatory: it confers discretion and does not impose a requirement that the trial court must decide the suit “forthwith” on that date alone, nor that it is barred from deciding the matter thereafter.
Since the High Court’s interference was based solely on this incorrect ground, it could not stand.
Holding and Implications
ALLOWED: The appeal was allowed; the High Court’s decision was set aside and the decision of the first appellate court was affirmed.
There was no order as to costs. The direct effect is restoration of the concurrent decree in favour of the appellant; the opinion indicates no broader implications beyond correcting the High Court’s erroneous understanding of the discretionary nature of Order 17 Rule 3 CPC.
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. The dispute in this appeal arises out of a suit filed by the appellant, who is the father, against his son, the respondent. The appellant had filed the suit for possession alleging that the respondent had forcibly occupied a portion of the appellant's property. The suit was decreed in favour of the appellant by the trial court. The first appeal which was preferred by the respondent was dismissed. The respondent filed a second appeal which was allowed by the High Court solely on the ground that the provisions of Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 had not been complied with by the trial court.
3. Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 enables the court, when time has been granted to a party to produce evidence and he fails to do so or the case of either default on the part of the party with regard to the further progress in the suit, to either (a) if the parties are present, proceed to decide the suit forthwith, or (b) if the parties are, or any of them is, absent, proceed under Rule 2 Order 17.
4. The High Court was of the view that clause (a) of Rule 3 Order 17 requires the court to deliver judgment on the same day. Since the judgment was not delivered on the same day, but on another day it was held that the provisions of Order 17 had been violated.
5. The reasoning of the High Court is entirely erroneous; Order 17 Rule 3 does not cast a mandate on the trial court but merely empowers the trial court to exercise its discretion in the manner provided. It does not by any stretch of imagination require that in the case of default of the party, the trial court must proceed to decide the suit forthwith and that if it does not do so on that date it cannot do so thereafter.
6. The only reason on which the High Court has set aside the concurrent findings of the first appellate court being erroneous, the appeal is allowed. The decision of the High Court is set aside and the decision of the first appellate court is affirmed.
7. There shall be no order as to costs.
Alert