Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, G. Kannan, filed a second appeal before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court against the judgment and decree of the Sub Court, Bodinayakanur, in A.S. No. 10 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025, which reversed the trial court's decree in O.S. No. 161 of 2012 dated 31.03.2016. The plaintiff had originally filed a suit for recovery of possession and other reliefs against six defendants. The trial court decreed the suit ex parte against defendants 1 to 3, 5, and 6, while the 4th defendant contested. The 4th defendant alone appealed, and the first appellate court allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit entirely, thereby granting relief to the non-appealing defendants. The plaintiff argued that the first appellate court exceeded its jurisdiction by granting relief to defendants who did not appeal or cross-appeal, and that the decree against them had attained finality. The plaintiff also contended that the appellate court decided the matter without any evidence from the non-appealing defendants and that the suit should have been remanded. The respondents argued that the appellate court correctly appreciated the evidence. The High Court admitted the second appeal on two substantial questions of law: whether the first appellate court could grant relief to non-appealing defendants in the absence of an appeal or cross-appeal, and whether it could travel beyond the scope of the appeal. The court found that the first appellate court had erred in granting relief to defendants who did not challenge the decree, and that the matter required remand for proper adjudication. The court set aside the first appellate court's judgment and remanded the case for fresh disposal, allowing the second appeal.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Scope of First Appeal - Relief to Non-Appealing Parties - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 96, Order 41 Rule 33 - The first appellate court erred in granting relief to defendants 1 to 3, 5 & 6 who had not filed any appeal or cross-appeal against the trial court's decree, which had attained finality as against them. The court held that the appellate court cannot travel beyond the scope of the appeal and grant relief to parties who have not challenged the decree. (Paras 4-5) B) Civil Procedure - Remand - Necessity of Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 41 Rule 23 - The first appellate court dismissed the suit without giving the plaintiff an opportunity to lead evidence, despite the suit being contested only by the 4th defendant. The court held that the matter required remand for proper adjudication, as the appellate court had decided the case in a summary manner without evidence from the non-appealing defendants. (Paras 5-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the first appellate court can grant relief to defendants who did not appeal or cross-appeal, and whether it can travel beyond the scope of the appeal.
Final Decision
The second appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree of the first appellate court in A.S. No. 10 of 2025 dated 13.10.2025 are set aside. The matter is remanded to the first appellate court for fresh disposal in accordance with law. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
Law Points
- First appellate court cannot grant relief to non-appealing defendants in absence of cross-appeal or cross-objections
- First appellate court cannot travel beyond scope of appeal
- Remand is appropriate when appellate court decides without evidence from non-appealing parties
