Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.25 seconds)
Thomas M.Varghese vs Sonia Susan Thomas on 22 July, 2014 cites

K Muthuswami Gounder vs N. Palaniappa Gounder on 31 August, 1998

The object of the rule is to empower the appellate court to do complete justice between the parties. This provision enables the appellate court to pass any decree or order which ought to have been made and to make such further order or decree, as the case may be, in favour of all or any of the parties, even though the appeal is as to part only of the decree; and such party or parties may not have filed an appeal. It is trite that the necessary condition for exercising the power under this Rule is that the parties to the proceedings are before the court and the question raised properly arises out of the judgment of the lower court and in that event, the appellate court could consider any objection to any part of the order or decree of the court and set it right. It is settled that no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to the circumstances under which power can be exercised under Order 41 Rule 33 of the CPC. Ordinarily, an appellate Mat.Appeal No.22/2006 17 court must not vary or reverse a decree or order in favour of a party, who has not preferred any appeal and this rule holds good notwithstanding Order 41 rule 33 CPC. However, in exceptional cases, it enables the appellate court to pass such decree or order as ought to have been passed, even if such decree would be in favour of parties, who have not filed any appeal. The power, though discretionary, should not be declined to be exercised merely on the ground that the party has not filed any appeal.(see K.Muthuswami Gounder v. N.Palaniappa Gounder - AIR 1998 SC 3118 and State of Punjab v. Bakshish Singh - AIR 1999 SC 2626).
Supreme Court of India Cites 3 - Cited by 71 - S R Babu - Full Document

A.G. Venkatanarasiah vs Vijayalakshmi And Ors. on 25 January, 1982

22. Learned counsel for the petitioner relying on A.G.Venkatanarasiah v. Vijayalakshmi (AIR 1982 Madras 329) contended that the need for stating the amount to be paid as alternative relief arises only when delivery in specie of the article could not be effected. Although there cannot be a dispute to that proposition, the situation will be different if one party claims two reliefs alternatively in an action and if the court grants either of the two. Therefore, we are of the view that the petitioner, after confining her claim in the petition for the value of gold ornaments as on the date of the petition with 18% interest, cannot Mat.Appeal No.22/2006 20 make a claim for the present worth of the gold ornaments. If the fact situation had permitted the petitioner to file an appeal or a cross appeal and this Court had to pass a decree in the appeal, then certainly this Court could have moulded the relief by invoking power under Order 20 Rule 10 and Order 41 Rule 33 CPC. In this case we do not find any reason to accept the claim of the petitioner in this regard.
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - Full Document
1