Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.62 seconds)Balkrishna Das Agarwal vs Smt. Radha Devi And Ors. on 9 December, 1988
24. A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Balkrishna Das Aganval v. Smt. Radha Devi and Ors. (supra), considered the scope of Order 41, Rule 22, after having quoted the amended Rule 22(1) alongwith explanation and observed at Paragraphs 23 to 26, as under:
The Motor Vehicles Act, 1988
U.P. State Road Transport Corporation vs Smt. Janki Devi And Ors. on 23 March, 1982
22. There cannot be any dispute that the cross-objections are maintainable, if there is a finding recorded against a respondent which forms the basis of the decree against him (See also U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Janki Devi, , and K. Chandrashekara Naik v. Narayana, AIR 1975 Karnataka 18).
K. Chandrashekara Naik And Anr. vs Narayana And Anr. on 11 October, 1974
22. There cannot be any dispute that the cross-objections are maintainable, if there is a finding recorded against a respondent which forms the basis of the decree against him (See also U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Smt. Janki Devi, , and K. Chandrashekara Naik v. Narayana, AIR 1975 Karnataka 18).
Jayakunvar Manilal Shah vs Syndicate Bank on 5 December, 1991
23. A Division Bench in the case of Jayakunvar Manilal Shah v. Syndicate Bank (supra), dealing with the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, has been pleased to observe in paragraph 68 as under:
Vishwanatha Reddy vs Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda And Anr. on 13 September, 1968
It is contended by learned Counsel for the plaintiff that the learned trial Judge has ordered simple interest from the date of the suit at the rate of 15% on the principal sum due under the SODH account 8/82 and at 18.5% on the PCL loan from the date of the suit till the date of the decree. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the plaintiff that even in respect of the cur rent and future interest upto the date of repayment, compounding of interest ought to have been allowed. Learned Counsel has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in Vishwanatha Reddy v. Konappa Rudrappa Nadgouda . We do not consider it necessary to go into the correctness of this contention because even if the contention of Mr. Aswatharam, learned Counsel for the plaintiff, is accepted as correct, the relief cannot be granted because it results in enhancing the decretal liability and increasing the decretal amount for which there is no cross-objection or appeal preferred by the plaintiff-Bank. However, reliance is placed on the provisions contained in Order 7, Rule 7 and Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure and it is contended that in the light of these provisions even in the absence of an appeal or cross-objection by the respondent-plaintiff relief can be granted enhancing the decretal liability. No doubt, under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it is open to the respondent in the appeal to support the decree without filing an appeal or cross-objection challenging the findings recorded against him, but it does not enable the respondent to have the decree modified and the liability enhanced without preferring cross-objection or an appeal. Similarly, Order 7, Rule 7 of the CPC, cannot be availed for granting such a relief which would be beyond the scope of the appeal and which would result in substantial variation in the decree to the disadvantage of the appellant. Hence, we decline to accept the contention.