J AND K BANK LIMITED Vs. ABDUL SAMAD CHILOO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant Bank, allowed respondent to open a Current Account and granted him over draft facilities at its Anantnag Branch. On his alleged failure to clear the overdraft taken by him, the Bank adjusted the outstanding amount against the deposits in respondent's Saving Bank Account in Amirakadal Branch of the Bank. Respondent filed a Civil suit for recovery of Rs. 19,451.86 which was decreed by District Judge Bank Cases, Srinagar on 30-4-1997 Against this judgment and decree, Civil Ist. Appeal 69/1997 was preferred in the High Court. This appeal was disposed of by an order dated 8-10-97 by learned single Judge as under :- "Nemo for petitioner,On previous date last and final opportunity was given to counsel for the petitioner to reply the queries raised by the Court in the matter.The learned counsel for the petitioner has neither reported back nor caused his appearance and even does not care to reply the queries which were raised by the Court.So this Court has come to the conclusion that revision which has been filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is being dismissed."

(2.) The appellant has filed this Appeal against the above impugned order. The appeal has been admitted to hearing. In terms of Registry's report respondent is deemed served and is accordingly set ex parte. The counsel submits that as the Appeal has been dismissed on merits in absence of the parties and the appeal is termed and treated as Civil Revision in the Appeal, therefore, a substantial question of law arises whether an appeal can be dismissed on merits in absence of the Appellant or his counsel and in case such an order is bad, if the Appeal can be re-admitted to hearing in terms of Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C.

(3.) Upon hearing counsel, we find that the case involves substantial question of law, whether a Civil Ist. Appeal can be dismissed on merits in absence of Appellant and whether such Appeal can be re-admitted to hearing in terms of Order 41, Rule 19, C.P.C.