LexPANNALAL versus STATE OF BOMBAY AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
196J Fm-,, II. 980 SUPREME COURT REPOkTS (1964] VOL. PANNALAL "· STATE OF BOMBAY AND ORS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. W..lNCHOO, M. HrnAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GUPTA and J.C. SHAH, JJ.) Ciuil Procdurt-Respowknt seeking rtlief 114ain4' a u- rtapondenl by way of cro88-objerlion-Pawer of Court of ApptaJ.-Code of Civil Prowlure, 1~08 (Act 5 of 1908), 0. 41, rr. 22, 33. The appellant brought thror. suiis claiming full payment with interest in respect of three hospitals constructed by him in execution of th1ce separate contracts between hirn and the Deputy Cotnmissiouer. 'l'he trial Judge decreed the suits for part of his c!.im against the State of Madhya Pradesh and held that other defendants were not liable, and accordingly dismissed the suits against them. On appeals preferred by the State of Madhya Pradesh, the High Court set aside the decree against the State Government and allowed the appeals with costs. The plaintiff at that stage prayed for leave of the High Court to file a cross-objection and also for decrees to be passed against the Deputy Commis.ioner under 0. 41, r. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which was rejected and all the suits were dismissed. It was urged thal (I) the State Government was liable in respect of all of these contracts and (2) the High Court ought to have g1anted relief against such of the other defendants as it thought fit under 0. 41, r. 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. • Held, that the State Government was not liable in respect of any of the3e contracts. lleld, further, that the wide wording of 0. 41, r. 33 empowers the appellate court to tn;tkc y.·halcver order it thinks fit, not only as between the app<"ll.lnt anc.l the respondent hut also as l>et\veen a re~ponc.lcnt and a respondent. It could not be said that if a party who coulJ have filcc..I a c1oss-objcction under 0. 41, r. 22 did not do><>, the appeal court could under no circumstances give hlm relief under the provision of 0. 41, ... r. 33. Order 41, r. 22 permits as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only again1t the appelhnt and > 1 s.c.:R. SUPREME COURT RF.PORTS 981 it is only in exceptional cases that an objection under O. 41, r. 22 can be directed against the other respondents. On the <I facts of these cases the High Court refused to exercise its poweJS under 0. 41, r. 33 on an incorrect view of the law and so the appeal must be remanded to the High Court for decision what relief should be granted to plaintiff under 0. 41 r. 33. Burroda Soundree Da&ee v. Nobo Gopal Mullick, (1864) W.R. 294, Maharaja Tarucknath Roy v. Tubooruni"a Ohowdhrain, (1867). 7 W.R. 39, Gane.h Pandurang Agt• v. Gangadhar Ramakrishna, (1869) 6 Born. H.C.Rep. 2244, Anwar Jan Bibee v. Azmut Ali, (1870) 15 W.R. 26, Tirmnama v. Lakshmanan, (1883) 7 Mad. 215. Venkate•waruiu v. < Rammama, I.L.R. (1950) Marl. 874, Jan Mohamed v. P. N. Razden, 1U.R. (1944) Lah. 433 and Vhandiprasaa v. Jugul Kishore, A.1.R. (1948) Nag. 377, referred to. Anath Nath v. Dwarka Nath, A.I.R. (1939) P. C. 86, held inapplicable. CrvIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 207 to 209 of 1961. . l Appeals from the judgment and decree dated August 23, 1957, of the Bombay High Court at Nagpur in First Appeals Nos. 105 to 107 of 1952 from Original Decree. S. T. Desai, J. B. Datb.lchanji, 0. C. Mathur and Ravinder Narain, for the appellants. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India, < N. s, Bindra and R. H. Dhebur for P. D. Menon, for the respondent No. 1. Girish Chandra for Sarrfor Bahadur, for respon- dents Nos. 3 and 8 . .. 1963. February 11. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-The appellant is a building contractor. He constructed buildings for the Bai /9b3 PIUUla/ol •• 81411 of Bom6oy Das Gupta, J. 1163 r-o1a1 •• SIMI of Homb•.J Da.s Gupt•, J. 982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964) VOL Gangabai Memorial Hospital, Gondia, Kunwar Tilaksingh Civil Hospital, Gondia, and also for the Twynam Hospital, Tumsar, all within the district of Bhandara in Madhya Pradesh, in execution of three separate contracts in respect of the three hospitals which were concluded between him and Deputy Commissioner of Bhandara. Though he received part payment in respect of each of these contracts he claims not to have received full payment of what was due to him. On April I, 1948 he brought the three suits out of which these three appeals have ari
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.