9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the respondents, not having filed an appeal or cross-objection in regard to the pecuniary damages in B and C schedules, could be permitted to rely on Order 41 Rule 22 CPC (as amended in 1976) and to contend that the findings relating to malice, absence of reasonable and probable cause were not correct and whether the respondents could be permitted to support the dismissal of the suit by the High Court so far as the non-pecuniary damages in A schedule were concerned, on that basis? 2. Whether, in case the respondents are held entitled to attack the said adverse findings under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, the said findings as to the existence of reasonable and probable cause, malice etc. are liable to be set aside? Judgment Summary: Issue 1: The court examined the scope and effect of Order 41 Rule 22 CPC as amended in 1976. Before the amendment, it was established that a respondent could attack an adverse finding without filing cross-objections to support the decree in their favor. The 1976 Amendment clarified this position, stating that a respondent could support the decree by asserting that the findings against them should have been in their favor without filing cross-objections. The court held that the respondents were entitled to contend that the High Court's findings regarding the absence of reasonable and probable cause or malice could be attacked to support the dismissal of the suit for non-pecuniary damages in A schedule. Filing cross-objections was not obligatory, and there was no res judicata. Issue 2: The court reviewed the evidence regarding the search, seizure, and arrest of the appellant. It was noted that the Assam Government had issued instructions to enforce the Assam Food Grains (Licensing and Control) Order, 1961, even after 1.10.77, pending further instructions. The court found that the respondents acted upon these instructions, and their actions could not be deemed without reasonable or probable cause. The court also found no sufficient evidence to support the appellant's claims of informing the respondents about the Gazette notification or showing permits for milling paddy. The allegations of demanding a bag of rice were also disbelieved. Consequently, the court held that the High Court's findings regarding malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause could not be accepted. The respondents could sustain the dismissal of the suit for non-pecuniary damages in A schedule. Conclusion: The appeal filed by the plaintiff seeking damages for non-pecuniary damages in A schedule was dismissed. The decree for pecuniary losses in B and C schedule items remained. The appeal was dismissed without costs.
|
