M/S Bharat Pumps And Compressors Ltd. vs M/S. Chopra Fabricators And ... on 27 May, 2022
ii) Sitaram Reddy Vs. Chinna Ram Reddy & others [AIR 1959 AP 159] (Andhra Pradesh High Court);
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.35 seconds)Documents citing
Sitaram Reddy vs Chinna Ram Reddy And Ors. on 16 April, 1958
N. Mohana Kumar vs Bayani Lakshmi Narasimhaiah And Others on 17 December, 1999
Justice M. Jagganadha Rao, as he then was considered the scope of Order 21, Rule 54( 1 -A) and 66 and Order 38 in P.R. Reddy's case (supra). He held:
Chalasani Subbarayudu vs Kalagara Venkata Subbarao And Ors. on 29 October, 1965
7. The principal contention of the learned Advocate for the appellant is that this was not a proper case to exercise the powers conferred under Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. His complaint is that the plaintiff was not called upon to meet that point as there was no appeal filed by the 8th defendant, and that it was unnecessary to consider that question in order to dispose of the two appeals before the lower appellate Court. I find sufficient force in this contention. It is true that Order 41 Rule 33 C.P.C. is couched in a very wide language and confers wide discretion on the appellate Court. It has discretionary power under that Rule to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed, or as the nature of the case may require notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree, or that the party in whose favour the power is proposed to be exercised has not preferred any appeal, or filed any cross-objections. It has now however been fairly settled that this Rule s not free from exceptions and certain limitations. Normally in order to avoid a decree against him a party must prefer an appeal, or file cross-objections as the case may be. If he omits to adopt this normal course, the power under Rule 33 of Order 41 must be exercised with care, caution and restraint. No hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the circum-stances in which this power can be exercised. But one broad principle which now has been firmly settled is that this power can be exercised in a case where without setting aside other part of the decree no effective disposal of the appeal can be made; in other words, as Venkatarama Ayyar, J., observed in Krishna Reddy v. Rami Reddy ". where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant it becomes necessary to re-adjust the rights of other parties."
1