Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.24 seconds)The Limitation Act, 1963
Rameshwar Prasad And Ors. vs Shyam Beharilal Jagannath And Ors. on 3 May, 1963
Rameshwar Prasad's case(1) is obviously distinguishable from
the present case. In Rameshwar Prasad's caseall the
plaintiffs whose suit had, been dismissed had filed an
appeal and thereafter one of them died and his heirs were
not brought on the record. In the, present case there is an
order against the decree-holders but all the decree-holders
did not appeal : only one of them appealed and other two
were joined as party respondents.
Ratan Lal Shah vs Firm Lalmandas Chhadammalal & Anr on 15 April, 1969
0. 41 r. 4 Code of Civil Procedure. In Ratan Lal Shah's
case(1) this Court allowed the appeal to be prosecuted, even
though one of the joint decree-holders impleaded as a party-
respondent had not been served with the notice of appeal.
In the present case one of the respondents had died and his
heirs have not been brought on the record. No distinction
in principle may be made between Ratan Lal Shah'J case(1)
and the present case. Competence of the appellate court to
pass a decree appropriate to the nature of the dispute in an
appeal filed by one of several persons against whom a decree
is made on a ground which is common to him and others is not
lost merely because of the persons who was jointly
interested in the claim has been made a,party-respondent and
on his death his heirs have not been brought on the record.
Power of the appellate court under Order 41 r. 4 to vary or
modify the decree of a Subordinate Court arises when one of
the persons out of many against whom a decree or an order
had been made on a ground which was common to him and others
has appealed. That power may be exercised when other
persons who were parties to the proceeding before the
subordinate court and against whom a decree proceeded on a
ground which was common to the appellant and to those other
persons are either not impleaded as parties to the appeal or
are impleaded as respondents. The view taken by the High
Court cannot therefore be sustained.
The Delhi Land Reforms Rules, 1954
1