RATAN LAL SHAH versus FIRM LALMANDAS CHHADAMMALAL & ANR.

Citation: [1970] 1 S.C.R. 296 · Decided: 15-04-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RATAN LAL SHAH 
~. 
FIRM LALMANDAS CHHADAMMALAL a ANR. 
April 15, 1969 
[J. C. SHAH Am> G. K. MITTER, JJ.] 
B 
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Ord.,. 41 Rult 4--Jo/nt dKrtt against two 
persons-Ap~a/ by only ont person-Whtthtr apptal court can txcrciu 
jurisdiction undtr 0. 41 r. 4. 
The respondent obtained a joint decree apinst the appellant 
and 
his partner M. Apinst the decree, the appellant alone appealed to the 
Hlsh Court. 
M was impleaded u the leC01ld respondent lo the appul. 
ThO notice of appeal sent to M wu returned unserved. The HJ&h Coon 
C 
dlsmiued the appeal on the view that aincc there wu a joint decree aplnat 
the appellant and M lo a suit foUDded on a joint cause of actioo and the 
decree apinst M had become ftnal, the appellant could not claim to be 
beard on his appeal; if he was heard there could be two conllictin& dcci-
lioas between the same parties and in the same suit bated on the same 
cause of action. The High Court a!Jo held that the appellant had not taken 
steps to serve M and the appeal must be dismissed for want of prosecution. 
D 
On appeal to this Court 
HELD : The judgment of the High Court could not be su.taioed. 
The appeal could not be dism"9ed on the ground that M was not 
served with the notice of appeal, nor, in view of the proviJioos of Order 
41 Ruic 4, could the High Court diuniss the appeal on the ground that 
there was a possibility of two confiicting decrees. [2,7 0-HJ 
J!' 
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. 1be Court in such an appeal ma• 
reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the parties who are in <be 
same interest as the appellant. 
[298B] 
Karam Singh Sobti and Anr. v. Shri Pratap Chand and Anr, (1964) 
F 
4 S.C.R. 647, explained and followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION; Civil Appeal No. 1019 of 
1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
July 10, 1963 <'f the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 
16 of 1953. 
G 
C. B. Aganvala and K. P. Gupta, for the appellant. 
B. C. Misra, 0. P. Gupta, Ram Parkash Agarwal and Sultan 
Singh, for respondent No. I, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shah, J, Firm Lalmandas Chhadammalal-hereinafter called 
'the plaintiffs'-<:ommenccd an action against "Mohan Singh Ratan 
Lal, through its partners Mohan Singh and Ratan Llll", in the 
R 
• 
,A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' F 
G 
H 
RATAN LAL V. LAL MAN DAS (Shah, /.) 
297 
Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Nainital, for a decree for 
Rs. 12,88"3/- and interest thereon for value of goods supplied. 
Ratan Lal denied liability for payment of the amount claimed. 
Mohan Singh by a separate written statement admitted that g?<Jds 
were supplied by the plaintiffs to the firm, but submitted that he 
was liable only for one-fifth of the amount claimed. The Trial 
Judge decreed the claim of the plaintiffs in its entirety against 
"Mohan Singh ·aaid Ratan Lal and the firm known as Mohan Singh 
Ra tan Lal". 
Against the decree, Ratan Lal alone appealed to the High 
Court ot Allahabad. Mohan Singh was impleaded as the secoild 
respondent in the appeal. 
The notice of appeal sent to Mohan 
Singh was returned unserved and an application made by· counsel 
for the appellant to serve Mohan Singh "in the ordinary course 
as well as by registered post" was not disposed of by the Court. 
On July 9, 1963 Ratan Lal applied that it was "detected that there 
had been no service of the notice of appeal upon Mohan Singh 
and it was essential for the ends of justice that notice of appeal 
may be served upon Mohan Singh". The Court by order dated 
July 10, 1963, rejected the application and proceeded to hear the 
appeal. 
The Court was of the view that since there was a joint 
decree against Ratan Lal a.nd Mohan Singh in a suit founded on 
a joint cause of action and the decree against Mohan Singh had 
become final, ·Ratan Lal could not claim to be heard on his appeal. 
The High Court observed : 
"Lf we hear him (Ratan Lal) the result may be that 
on the success of his appeal there will be two co:nflicting 
decisions between the same parties in the same suit 
based on the same cause of action. Furthermore, the 
appellant has not taken steps to serve the second respon-
dent (Mohan Singh) and the appeal must be dismissed 
for want of prosecution. 
On both these grounds we 
dismiss this appeal." 
Against the order passed by the High Court, this appeal ha

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.