Meruva Parasuramudu vs Mandavilli Ramanna

Srinivasa Aiyangar, J.—I think this is a case in which leave to appeal should be granted under the provisions of Order 44 of the Procedure

Code. Mr. P. Somasundaram appeared without any notice on behalf of the respondent in the appeal and wished to be heard on the question

whether, having regard to the terms of the proviso to R. I of that order there is such a case made out for the appellant as would justify me in saying

that the judgment and decree of the Lower Court are erroneous or unjust. I am not satisfied that he has got any locus spandi to appear at this stage

and require to be heard, but I have nevertheless heard him, and even after hearing him I am not at all satisfied that the requirements of the proviso

are not satisfied in this particular case. I cannot possibly read the terms of the proviso as indicating that I must go through the whole case and admit

the appeal only if I am satisfied that I would reverse it there and then if no appearance was entered for the respondent. I take the terms in the

proviso merely to indicate that the Court before admitting such a pauper appeal should be satisfied that it is not merely a frivolous appeal and that

there are reasonable grounds for doubting the correctness or justness of the decision of the Lower Court. In that view I consider that there is a

great deal to be said with regard to the correctness of the decision of the Lower Court and I therefore order that the appeal should be dismissed.