LEGAL PRINCIPLE: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Order 6 Rule 10 – Distinction Between Dismissal Under Order 6 Rule 10 and Order 3 Rule 20(4)
PRINCIPLE STATEMENT
Order 6 rule 10 provides only for dismissal of appeals for failure to file briefs and contains no provision similar to Order 3 rule 20(4) which allows dismissed appeals to be restored; the two rules operate differently and create different consequences.
RATIO DECIDENDI (SOURCE)
"This rule provides... It permits of one order and that is the dismissal of the appeal for failure to file the briefs... The provision of Order 3 rule 20(4) of the Court of Appeal Rules which allows an appeal to be dismissed for non-compliance to apply for the restoration of the appeal has no similar provision under Order 6 rule 10 of the same Court of Appeal Rules."
EXPLANATION / SCOPE
This principle establishes that different procedural rules for dismissing appeals have qualitatively different effects and cannot be interpreted uniformly. Order 3 rule 20(4) dismissals (typically for non-appearance) are provisional and subject to restoration applications, reflecting the lesser culpability and easier rectification. Order 6 rule 10 dismissals for failure to file briefs are treated as final, reflecting the more serious nature of non-compliance with substantive appellate requirements. The distinction prevents parties from impermissibly importing restoration provisions from one rule to another and recognizes that procedural rules are carefully crafted with specific consequences for different types of default. Appellants must understand that failure to file briefs has more severe and irreversible consequences than mere non-appearance at hearings.