Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In the words of J.C. Shah, J. speaking for a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Nirmala Bala Ghose and Anr. v. Balai Chand Ghose and Anr., [1965] 3 SCR 550, the limitation on discretion operating as bounds of the width of power conferred by Rule 33 can be so formulated -

"The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where in an appeal the Court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the Court appealed from and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by O.41 R.33 may properly be invoked. The rule however does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from." (Para 22) A Division Bench decision of Calcutta High Court in Jadunath Basak v. Mritunjoy Sett and Ors., AIR (1986) Calcutta 416 may be cited as an illustration. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendant had no right or authority to run the workshop with machines in the suit premises and for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from running the workshop. The Trial Court granted a decree consisting of two reliefs: (i) the declaration as prayed for, and (ii) an injunction permanently restraining the defendant from running the workshop except with the terms of a valid permission and licence under Sections 436 and 437 of Calcutta Municipal Act, 1951 from the Municipal Corporation. The defendant filed an appeal. The Division Bench held that in an appeal filed by the defendant, the plaintiff cannot challenge that part of the decree which granted conditional injunction without filing the cross-objection. The Division Bench drew a distinction between the respondent's right to challenge an adverse finding without filing any appeal or cross-objection and the respondent seeking to challenge a part of the decree itself without filing the cross-objection. The Division Bench held that the latter was not permissible. We find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the High Court of Calcutta.