Case Note & Summary
The matter arose from a money recovery suit (R.C.S. No. 232/1978) decreed by the Trial Court on 15/09/1983, directing the appellants (original defendants) to pay Rs. 11,698.17 paise to the respondent (original plaintiff). The appellants, dissatisfied with the decree, filed a first appeal, but the First Appellate Court, while dismissing their appeal, enhanced the decretal amount to Rs. 18,186.17 paise, even though the respondent/decree-holder had not challenged the quantum. Aggrieved by this enhancement, the appellants approached the High Court in Second Appeal No. 244 of 1993. The High Court admitted the appeal on 30/06/1993, framing substantial questions of law and directing the appellants to deposit the decretal amount of Rs. 11,700 with 12% interest as a condition for stay. The appellants deposited Rs. 35,400 on 01/09/1993. During pendency, the respondent Board was trifurcated, and Maharashtra State Power Generation Co. Ltd. was substituted as respondent. In 2018, both parties informed the Court that the deposited amount fully satisfied the Trial Court decree, and the respondent sought to withdraw it. The core legal issue was whether the First Appellate Court could, while dismissing the defendant’s appeal, modify the decree to the prejudice of the appellant by enhancing the decretal amount in favor of the non-appealing decree-holder. The appellants argued that the appellate court had no such power in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection. The respondent, through counsel, conceded that the deposited amount satisfied the Trial Court decree and expressed willingness to withdraw, effectively accepting the original quantum. The High Court, per Ravindra V. Ghuge, J., held that the First Appellate Court’s role was confined to examining the correctness of the decree under challenge. Since the decree-holder had no grievance, the appellate court could not suo motu enhance the amount while dismissing the debtor’s appeal; doing so prejudiced the appellant who alone had invoked appellate jurisdiction. The Court stated that the appellate court could have only sustained or set aside the decree, not modified it to the appellant’s disadvantage. Consequently, the Second Appeal was partly allowed. The enhancement by the First Appellate Court was set aside, and the Trial Court’s decree for Rs. 11,698.17 paise was restored. The respondent was permitted to withdraw the amount deposited by the appellants along with accrued interest, and the executing court was directed to dispose of the execution proceedings forthwith upon such withdrawal. The judgment thus partly favored the appellants by reducing the recoverable amount to the original decretal sum while allowing the respondent to recover the same.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Appellate Court Powers - Enhancement of Decree - If Appeal Dismissed and No Cross-Appeal - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The First Appellate Court, while dismissing an appeal filed by the judgment-debtor, enhanced the decretal amount from Rs. 11,698.17 to Rs. 18,186.17 in favour of the decree-holder who had not preferred any appeal or cross-objection - Held that such enhancement to the prejudice of the appellant is impermissible as the decree-holder had no grievance against the Trial Court's decree; the appellate court could only sustain or set aside the decree under challenge, not modify it to the appellant's disadvantage (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a First Appellate Court can, while dismissing an appeal filed by the defendant/judgment-debtor, enhance the decretal amount in favor of the plaintiff/decree-holder who has not preferred any appeal or cross-objection against the original decree?
Final Decision
Second Appeal partly allowed. The First Appellate Court's enhancement of decretal amount from Rs. 11,698.17 to Rs. 18,186.17 is set aside. The Trial Court's decree for Rs. 11,698.17 paise is sustained. The respondent is permitted to withdraw the deposited amount of Rs. 35,400/- with accrued interest. Execution proceedings to be disposed of accordingly.
Law Points
- An appellate court
- while dismissing an appeal by the judgment-debtor
- cannot modify the decree to the prejudice of the appellant by enhancing the decretal amount in favor of the decree-holder who did not file any appeal or cross-objection.
