9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Scope of order 41, rule 22 and order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Analysis: The judgment by the Supreme Court involved eight appeals raising a common question of law regarding the scope of order 41, rule 22 and order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court decided to dispose of these appeals by a common judgment due to the similarity in the questions raised. The specific facts of one civil appeal were referred to, where the appellant was a land holder under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The Collector initially allotted twelve units to the appellant, who then appealed before the Commissioner. The State of Bihar did not appeal the Collector's decision. The Commissioner, however, set aside the Collector's finding regarding the units allotted to the appellant, leading to further legal challenges. The High Court upheld the Commissioner's decision based on order 41, rule 22, which was the main contention raised by the appellants in the various appeals. The main contention raised by the appellants was that the Commissioner was not justified in reversing the finding in favor of the appellants without any appeal or cross-objection filed by the State of Bihar. The court analyzed the provisions of order 41, rule 22, which allows a respondent to support the decree but not challenge it without filing a cross-objection. Since the State of Bihar did not file any appeal or cross-objection, the court held that the Commissioner could not have set aside the finding in favor of the appellant based on this rule alone. The court also examined order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which empowers the Appellate Court to pass any decree necessary for complete justice between the parties, even if they have not filed an appeal or objection. The court discussed previous judgments to interpret the scope and application of order 41, rule 33. It emphasized that this rule should be applied with discretion to avoid contradictory decisions and to ensure justice between the parties. The court highlighted that the power under this rule should be exercised carefully, especially when interfering with final decrees without appeals or cross-objections. In the present case, the court found that the Commissioner and the High Court erred in reversing the finding regarding the allotment of units without any appeal by the State of Bihar. The court concluded that the Commissioner and the High Court's decisions were incorrect, and the appeals were allowed. The order of the High Court and the Commissioner were set aside concerning the finding of the Collector in favor of the appellants, while the remand order remained intact for other points. Each party was directed to bear their own costs. In summary, the Supreme Court's judgment clarified the application of order 41, rule 22 and order 41, rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the context of appeals related to land holdings under the Bihar Land Reforms Act. The court emphasized the importance of following procedural rules and ensuring justice between the parties, especially when interfering with final decrees without proper appeals or objections.
|
