Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Ramesh Radkabhai Vartha, filed Regular Civil Suit No. 15 of 2001 seeking specific performance of an agreement or in the alternative, compensation. The trial court dismissed the suit on 30.09.2010 but directed the defendant to refund Rs.40,000/- as compensation with 12% interest from the date of suit till realization. The defendant appealed in Regular Civil Appeal No. 8 of 2010, which was dismissed by the lower appellate court on 05.05.2012. However, the appellate court also set aside the relief of compensation granted by the trial court, even though the defendant had not filed any cross-objection. The plaintiff then filed the present second appeal before the Bombay High Court. The High Court noted that the defendant had raised a plea of 'undue influence' in the execution of the agreement, but the trial court did not frame any issue on that aspect, and the appellate court also failed to consider it. Both courts below held that the agreement was proved, but the appellate court reversed the trial court's findings on other issues. The High Court held that the appellate court could not have set aside the decree awarding compensation without a cross-objection from the defendant. Additionally, since the plea of undue influence was not adjudicated, the matter required remand. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment of the lower appellate court, and remanded the matter to the trial court to frame an additional issue on undue influence and decide the suit afresh. The trial court was directed to give an opportunity to both parties to lead evidence on that issue.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court's Power - Setting Aside Decree Without Cross-Objection - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 22 - The lower appellate court cannot set aside the decree passed by the trial court awarding compensation in favor of the plaintiff without there being any cross-objection filed by the defendant. The appellate court's order to that extent is unsustainable. (Para 3) B) Contract Law - Undue Influence - Framing of Issue - Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 16 - Where the defendant raises a plea of 'undue influence' in execution of an agreement, the trial court must frame an issue on that aspect. Failure to do so vitiates the trial. The matter is remanded to the trial court to frame an additional issue on undue influence and decide the suit afresh. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court could set aside the decree awarding compensation without there being any cross-objection by the defendant, and whether the matter should be remanded to the trial court to frame an additional issue of undue influence.
Final Decision
Second appeal allowed. Judgment of lower appellate court set aside. Matter remanded to trial court to frame additional issue on undue influence and decide suit afresh. Parties to be given opportunity to lead evidence on that issue.
Law Points
- Appellate court cannot set aside a decree in favor of a party without cross-objection
- Remand for framing additional issue of undue influence
- Duty of court to frame issues on pleadings
