Report No. 27
Order XLI, rule 20
There is some controversy as to whether a respondent can be added in an appeal after the period of limitation for appeal has expired. The decisions on the subject will be found discussed in the under-mentioned cases1-2. Some of these decisions proceed on the inherent power of the Court to add the respondents in such cases.
It is considered, that the correct view is, that after the period of limitation has expired against a party, he ceases to be "interested in the appeal" under rule 20 as interpreted by the Privy Council3.
Whether such party can be impleaded under the inherent power or whether a separate appeal can be filed against that respondent after obtaining leave of the Court under section 5, Limitation Act, are different matters.
It is considered unnecessary to make any amendment, to cover such cases.
1. P. Anandu v. M. Acharyulu, AIR 1958 AP 43 (FB).
2. Notified Area Committee, Buria v. Govind Rain, AIR 1959 Punj 277 (278) (FB).
3. Chokalingam v. Seethai, ILR 6 Rang 29: AIR 1927 PC 252.
Order XLI, rule 22
A suggestion has been made to the effect that a respondent should not be allowed to file a cross-objection in which the appellant is not interested. While that would be the ordinary rule1-2-3-4, a rigid provision may not be desirable, because there may be cases where a different rule might have to be applied5-6-7. The suggestion has not, therefore, been carried out.
1. Venkataswarlu v. Ramamma, ILR 1950 Mad 874: AIR 1950 Mad 379 (FB).
2. Chanda Bibi v. Mohan Ram, AIR 1934 Pat 134.
3. Co-operative Hindustan Bank Ltd. v. Surendra Nath, AIR 1932 Cal 527.
4. B.I.G. Ins. Co. v. Ramnath, AIR 1962 Pat 140.
5. Kanij Fatima v. Jai Narain Ram, AIR 1944 Pat 334.
6. Basistha v. Shanker, ILR 29 Pat 160 (169): AIR 1952 Pat 323.
7. Musleha Bibi v. Ram Narain, (1918) ILR 40 All 536.
Order XLI, rule 23A (New)
This carries out the recommendation made in the 14th Report1, and is intended to widen the powers of the appellate court to remand a case in the interests of justice2.
See also the Allahabad, Andhra and Madras Amendments to Order XLI, rule 23 and Punjab Order 41, rule 23A. Under-mentioned cases on these Amendments are helpful3-4-5.
1. 14th Report, Vol. I.
2. As to inherent power of remand, see discussion in-(i) AIR 1931 Mad 791: (ii) AIR 1922 Mad 505 (508, 509, 510) (FB).
3. Kewalram v. Mihilal, AIR 1960 All 655.
4. Veerbhadrappa v. Venkatappa, AIR 1961 AP 226.
5. Ramakrishiw v. Rangayya, AIR 1954 Mad 783.
Back
