LexKUSHRO S. GANDHI & ORS. versus N. A. GAJDAR & ORS .
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
' • • • A B KUSHRO S. GANDHI & ORS. v. N. A. GAJDAR & ORS . . November 27, 1968 [S. M. SIKRI AND R. S. BACHAWAT, JJ.] 95i Tort-Suit against several tort-feasors for conspiracy-Unconditional apology by one-Accepted by plaintiff and decree passed-If operate1 as release of other joint tort-feasors. Code of Civil Procedure (5 of 1908). SJ. 24 and 115-Revisiona/ Jurisdiction-Revision against order regarding payment of court fee- C If High Court could decide orher issues-Consent of parties-Effect of- D E F G H S. 24, scope of. A suit for damages was filed on the allegations that the plaintiffs and defendants were all members of an association and that the defendants committed a tort against the plaintiffs by conspiring and preventing the plaintiffs from being elected to the office of trustees of the association. One of the defendants tendered an unconditional apology which was ac- cepted by the plaintiffs and a decree was passed in terms of the compro- mise. The other defend~nts, thereafter, filed written· statements conten- ding that the release of one of the defendants from his joint liability as a tort-feasor extinguished the plaintiff's rights against the remaining defendants and raised questions regarding valuation and court-fees. The trial court took up the issue regarding court-fees, held there was a defi ... ciency and granted time to the plaintiffs to make good the deficiency. The plaintiffs, instead, applied for amendment of the plaint and the trial court allowed the application. The High Court, in revision filed by the defendants gave appropriate directions regarding payment of court-fee. The High Court. also decided, with the consent of both sides, that the decree against one of the defendants namely, the compromise decree, was complete accord and satislfaction and that the cause of action against all the defendants being one and indivisible, the decree operated as a bar against further proceedings against the remaining defendants. In appeal to this Court, it was contended that the subject matter of revision before the High Court being only the order of the trial court regarding court-fee, the High Court had no jurisdiction to decide any other point. HELD : (I) The High .Court had no power to decide any other issue even if the parties had consented. The order of the High Court could not be justified under s. 24, Civil Procedure Code, because, it was not a case of the High Court withdrawing the case to itself and trying the same. [963 D-E] (2) The High Court having decided the question of maintainability of the suit against the, other defendants, the trial court would feel handi- capped if the matter were to be remitted to it. The appropriate pro- cedure is for this Court to decide the question. [963 E--FJ (3) The rule which is in consonance with equity, justice and good conscience and which also recognises that the liability of tort-feasors is joint and several, is that, before the other joint tort-feasors can rely on accord and satisfaction, a plaintiff must have received full satisfaction or L6Sup.CJ/69-IO . • 960 SUPR1!ME COURT REPORTS [1969] 2 S.C.R what the law must consider as such from one of the tort-feasors. What A is full satisfaction would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. [970 C--E] In the present case, the apology which was embodied in a decree could not be treated as full satisfaction for the tort alleged to have been committed by the defendant,. But it must be treated as an election on the part of the plaintiffs to pursue their several remedy against the de- fendant tendering the apology. [970 E-F] B Ram Kumar Singh v. Ali Husain, (1909) I.L.R. 31 All. 173, Makhan- lal L<>laram v. Panchamal Sheoprasad, A.I.R. 1934 Nag. 226; Har Krishna Lal v. Haji Qurban Ali, (1942) I.L.R. 17 Luck. 284 and Shiva Sagar Lal v. Mata Din A.I.R. 1949 All. 105; and English and American Law, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 632 oi. C 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 5, 1960 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 325 of 1957. G. N. Kunzru, B. C. Misra, P. K. Chakravarti and Om Pra- D • kash, for the appellants. • J.P. Goyal and S. P. Singh, for the respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sikri, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the E judgment of the Allahabad High Court (Dhavan, J.) allow
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.