Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 2 of 2 (0.19 seconds)Karam Singh Sobti & Anr vs Shri Pratap Chand & Anr on 29 August, 1963
"Where there are more plaintiffs or more
defendants than one in a suit, and the decree
appealed from proceeds on any ground common to
all the plaintiffs or to all
298
the defendants, any one of the plaintiffs or
of the defendants may appeal from the whole
decree, and thereupon the Appellate Court may
reserve or vary the decree in favour of all
the plaintiffs or defendants, as the case may
The object of the rule is to enable one of the parties to a
suit to obtain relief in appeal when the decree appealed
from proceeds on a ground common to him and others. The
Court in such an appeal may reserve or vary the decree in
favour of all the parties who are in the same interest as
the appellant. There was some conflict of judicial opinion
in the High Courts' on the question whether power under 0.
41 r. 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be exercised
where all the parties against whom a decree passed on a
ground which is common to them are not impleaded in the
appeal. The preponderance of authority in the High Courts
was that even in the absence of a person against whom a
decree has been passed on a ground common with the
appellant, the appeal was maintainable, and 'appropriate
relief may be granted It is, however, unnecessary to examine
those decisions for, in our judgment, the question has been
considered by this Court in Karam Singh Sobti and Anr. v.
Shri Pratap Chand and Anr.(1). In that case a landlord of
certain premises filed an action in ejectment against the
tenant and the sub-tenant in respect of premises on the
ground that the tenant had sub-let the premises without the
land lord's consent. The Trial Judge decreed the suit
holding that the landlord had not acquiesced in the sub-
letting. _ The sub-tenant alone appealed to the Additional
Senior Subordinate Judge who set aside the order of the
Trial Court. It was urged before this Court that the appeal
by the sub-tenant to the Subordinate Judge was incompetent,
because the tenant against whom a decree in ejectment was
passed had not appealed. On certain question which are not
material for the purpose of this judgment, there was
difference of opinion between Sarkar, J., on the one hand,
and S. K. Das, Acting C.J., and Hidayatullah, J., on the
other, but the Court unanimously held in that case that the
appeal was maintainable before the Subordinate Judge, even
though the tenant had not appealed against the order of the
Court of First Instance Sarkar, J., observed at p. 663 :
1