IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KURIAN JOSEPH & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.T.SANKARAN WEDNESDAY, THE 2ND DECEMBER 2009 / 11TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 FAO.No. 258 of 2008 AGAINST THE ORDER IN I.A.NO.109 OF 2006 IN A.S.NO.58 OF 1996 ON THE FILE OF THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, PATHANAMTHITTA O.S.NO.224 OF 1990 ON THE FILE OF THE SUB COURT, PATHANAMTHITTA APPELLANT:APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF ------------------------------------------------- M.M.PHILIP, MELEMURIYIL HOUSE, KUMPAZHA P.O., PATHANAMTHITTA. BY ADV. SRI.LIJU.V.STEPHEN RESPONDENTS: RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS ------------------------------------- 1. KERALA STATE, REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, PATHANAMTHITTA. 2. TAHSILDAR, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. 3. DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER, KONNY FOREST DIVISION, KONNY. THIS FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDERS HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/11/2009, THE COURT ON 02/12/2009 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: KURIAN JOSEPH & K.T.SANKARAN, JJ. ------------------------------------------------------------- F.A.O. NO. 258 OF 2008 ------------------------------------------------------------- Dated this the 2nd day of December, 2009 JUDGMENT K.T.Sankaran, J. Aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th June 2004 in A.S. No. 58 of 1996, Additional District (Adhoc) Court I, Pathanamthitta, the plaintiff- appellant filed F.A. O. No.216 of 2004 before this Court. The FAO was disposed of by the judgment dated 9th December 2005. The Appeal was dismissed without prejudice to the right of the appellant to approach the appellate court for necessary reliefs. The appellant had raised a contention that he had not made any concession before the lower appellate court for remanding the case to the trial court. After disposal of the FAO, the appellant filed I.A. No.109 of 2006 to review the judgment of the lower appellate Court. That application was dismissed, which is under challenge in this Appeal. 2. The appellant filed O.S.No.224 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Pathanamthitta against the State of Kerala, the Tahsildar and the Divisional Forest Officer for a F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 2 :: decree declaring that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount or interest to the defendants and that all proceedings initiated by the defendants against the plaintiff under the Kerala Revenue Recovery Act are illegal, void, ultra vires and without any authority. There was also a prayer for consequential injunction restraining the defendants, by a prohibitory injunction, from taking any proceedings under the Revenue Recovery Act for the recovery of any amount from the plaintiff. 3. The case of the appellant/plaintiff is the following: On 5.7.1989, the 3rd defendant conducted an auction for sale of teak poles collected in Mannarappara Range in Konni Forest Division. The plaintiff was the highest bidder for Rs. 6,82,093/-. He made the initial deposit of Rs. 20,000/-. The bidder could remove the teak poles only after confirmation of the auction. Confirmation of the auction was made only 7-9-1989. By that time, there was heavy rain throughout the State. Therefore, the plaintiff could not transport the teak poles. The Forest Department conducted a re-auction on 2.2.1990 for a lesser amount. The Department claimed from the plaintiff the loss sustained in re-auction. Steps under the Revenue Recovery Act were taken for realisation of the amount. It is stated, a F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 3 :: sum of Rs. 1,95,324/- was claimed as arrears. A chalan was issued by the 3rd defendant claiming a sum of Rs.1,95,324/-. After issuing notice to the defendants under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the suit was filed by the appellant for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. The suit was resisted by the defendants. The defendants contended, inter alia, as follows: There was no condition that the confirmation of auction should be made within seven days as alleged. The contract is not frustrated as alleged. It was specifically provided in the general conditions of auction that the Department will not be liable for any damage to the teak poles due to flood or fire. The plaintiff failed to remit the balance sale price. Therefore, re- auction became necessary. The plaintiff was informed of the same by the notice dated 18-12-1989. Re-auction was conducted on 2-2- 1990 in which the successful bidder offered only Rs.5,07,043/- The deficit and the sales tax were to be recovered from the plaintiff for which the chalan was issued. Since the plaintiff did not pay the amount, steps were taken for realisation of the amount by resorting to revenue recovery proceedings. The plaintiff has no cause of action. The plaintiff is not entitled to any relief in the suit. F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 4 :: 5. The judgment of the trial court is cryptic. After holding that there was delay in confirmation, issue Nos. 2 and 3 were answered thus: “.. The bid amount of the plaintiff was Rs.6,31,095/-. In the second auction an amount of Rs.1,23,665/- was in deficit. But in the notice Ext.A1 an amount of Rs.1,95,921/- is claimed. Ext.A2 is the chalan issued by the defendants to the plaintiff for deposit sum of Rs.1,95,324/-. A perusal of Ext.A2 chalan would show that defendants arrived at the figure shown in the chalan arbitrary. Sale tax is shown as Rs.39,04,043/-, income tax is shown as Rs.36,860/- and so on. It is therefore evident that what is claimed in Ext.A1 and A2 is not the correct amount due from the plaintiff. Issues decided accordingly.” 6. After arriving at the above finding, the trial court answered issue No. 4 thus: “10. Issue No.4:- In the plaint, declaration that the plaintiff is not liable to pay any amount to the defendants is prayed for. The contention of the defendants is that the plaintiff was at laches and consequently the Government suffered a loss of Rs.1,23,665/- on account of the re-auction. Since the plaintiff is not liable to pay Rs.1,95,921/- as demanded in Exts.A1 and A2, the Revenue Recovery Proceedings for the recovery on that amount is liable to be injuncted. The question whether any amount is due from the plaintiff to the defendant on account of the deficit in the second auction, is left open.” F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 5 :: 7. The plaintiff challenged the judgment and decree of the trial Court in A.S. No.58 of 1996 on the file of the Court of the Additional District Judge (Adhoc Court I), Pathanamthitta. The lower appellate Court remanded the suit to the trial court for fresh disposal for answering all the issues. The lower appellate Court held in paragraph 8 of the judgment, thus: “8. Both sides have conceded before me that the issues are not answered by the trial court and also that the trial court had adopted short cut method without answering the issues framed it. That alone had resulted this appeal. I find much force in the argument of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the trial court had failed in its duty by resorting to such a short cut disposal. A party who had come before court paying the requisite court fee and praying for declaratory relief has every right to pursue the same till his claim is either allowed or disallowed. Here the court below had not done either. Instead the court had left open all the issues worth the name at which the parties were at variance. Certainly the trial court had gone wrong thereby. The above point is answered accordingly, in favour of the appellant.” 8 The aforesaid judgment dated 16-6-2004 was challenged by the plaintiff in F.A.O.No.216 of 2004. This court rejected the contention of the plaintiff/appellant that the lower appellate court was not justified in remanding the case to the trial court leaving open all the issues. It was held thus: F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 6 :: “In this appeal learned counsel for the appellant contended that there was no such concession made by the counsel and the appellate court went wrong in directing the entire issues to be considered afresh when as a matter of fact the defendants did not file any appeal against that portion of the judgment granting injunction in favour of the plaintiff................ After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Government Pleader we find no reason to interfere in this appeal.” 9. After holding thus, this Court granted liberty to the appellant/plaintiff to approach the lower appellate Court to apply for review, if he is agreed by the observation that there was a concession for remand. 10. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed I.A. No.109 of 2006 before the trial court under Order 47 Rules 1 and 3 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure to review the order of remand. The lower appellate Court dismissed the application by the order dated 23rd July 2008, which is under challenge in this Appeal. 11. The court below held, in the order dated 23rd July 2008, thus: F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 7 :: “9. On going through the judgment of the learned Sub Judge it is crystal clear that all the issues have not been properly answered. The plaintiff/petitioner has filed the suit seeking a declaratory relief to the effect that he is not liable to pay any amount as claimed by the defendants/respondents as per Ext.A1 demand notice dated 6.7.1995. So also the plaintiff wants to restrain the defendants from taking any revenue recovery steps against him on the basis of Ext.A1 demand notice. It is alleged by the respondents in the written statement that there is failure on the part of the petitioner in removing teak poles in time and it invited a re-auction of the teak poles and a loss to the tune of Rs.1,95,324/- to the respondents. In the second auction the deficit amount is Rs.1,23,665/-. As per Ext.A1 notice the amount claimed is Rs.1,95,921/-. Where as, the amount mentioned in Ext.A2 chalan is Rs.1,95,324/-. It is in this context the learned Sub Judge held that there is inconsistency with respect to the amount claimed by the respondents. At the same time, the learned Sub Judge has not considered the question whether the plaintiff/petitioner is liable to pay any amount to the defendants/respondents or not. Actually this is the main question to be considered by the trial court to see whether any revenue recovery steps can be taken against the plaintiff/petitioner for realising the amount. 10. According to the petitioner it has not been conceded by the parties for a remand. In paragraph 6 of the judgment it is stated thus by the appellate court, “both sides have stated before me that the issues are not answered by the trial court and also that the trial court had adopted short-cut method without answering issues framed”. This does not mean that both parties have conceded for a remand of the case. Even if such a concession is not made by the parties it is highly essential to remand this case to the trial court as the main issue as aforesaid regarding the declaratory relief has not been answered by the trial court. It is the plaintiff who seeks for a declaratory relief to the effect F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 8 :: that he is not liable to pay any amount to the defendants/respondents as claimed in Ext.A1 and A2. In case this issue is not answered properly it is prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiff/petitioner. So, the remand of the case to the trial court for a fresh trial and disposal will not in any way affect the interest of the petitioner but only facilitate to redress his grievances through a proper adjudication. In short, I hold that there is no apparent error on the face of records to review the remand order dated 16.6.2004. Hence the review petition is liable to be dismissed.” 12. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the trial court had granted a decree for prohibitory injunction. The defendants did not file any appeal against the decree. The appeal was filed by the plaintiff. Therefore, the lower appellate court was not justified in remanding the whole case to the trial court. The counsel also relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Chokalingaswami Idol V. Gnanapragasam : (2008) 4 SCC 219 and Choudhary Sahu V. State of Bihar : AIR 1982 S.C. 98 in support of his contention. 13. The above contention was raised by the appellant in FAO No.216 of 2004. However, it was not apparently accepted by the High Court. F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 9 :: 14. We are of the view that the appellant is precluded from raising the above contention since such a contention was raised in FAO.No.216 of 2004 and it was apparently rejected. He cannot raise the same contention in the Appeal against the order dismissing the Review Petition. Principles of res judicata would bar the appellant from contending so. 15. We are also of the view that the lower appellate Court was justified in remanding the whole case to the trial court. The suit was for declaration and consequential injunction. In so far as the declaratory relief is concerned, the trial court did not decide the issue. Apparently, the question was left open. When the relief of declaration was not granted, it was not proper for the trial court to grant a decree for consequential injunction. The nature of the relief claimed is such that injunction could not be granted without finding whether the plaintiff is entitled to get a decree for declaration prayed for by him. The lower appellate Court was, therefore, justified in remanding the case to the trial court with a direction to decide all the issues including the issue regarding consequential injunction. We are of the view that the lower appellate Court did not commit any error in this regard. When the very question of founding any relief F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 10 :: was not decided by the trial court, it was not justified in simply granting a decree for injunction on the ground that there was some mistake in the amount shown in the Revenue Recovery notice. 16. In Chockalingaswami Idol’s case : (2008) 4 SCC 219, there was a finding regarding the ownership of land in question against the Government. The Government did not file any Appeal. In that context, the Supreme Court held that the finding could not be reversed by the appellate Court on an appeal filed by a party defendant. On the finding rendered by the trial court against the Government, the suit was liable to be decreed. In the present case, the position is different. A decree could not be passed on any finding rendered by the trial court. The trial Court did not arrive at any finding on the merits so as to answer the issues involved in the case. As rightly pointed out by the lower appellate court and as conceded by the parties, the trial court made a short cut. 17. Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows: “33. Power of Court of Appeal:- The Appellate Court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 11 :: and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and this power may be exercised by the court notwithstanding that the appeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection, and may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits where two or more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of all or any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filed against such decrees. Provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any order under Section 135-A, in pursuance of any objection on which the Court from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted or refused to make such order.” 18. In Choudhary Sahu’s case: A.I.R. 1982 SC 98, it was held: “12. The object of this rule is to avoid contradictory and inconsistent decisions on the same questions in the same suit. As the power under this rule is in derogation of the general principle that a party cannot avoid a decree against him without filing an appeal or cross-objection, it must be exercised with care and caution. The rule does not confer an unrestricted right to re-open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from. 13. Ordinarily, the power conferred by this rule will be confined to those cases where as a result of interference in favour of the appellant further interference with the decree of the lower Court is rendered necessary in order to adjust the rights of the parties according to justice, equity and good conscience. While exercising the power under this rule F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 12 :: the Court should not, lose sight of the other provisions of the Code itself nor the provisions of other laws, viz., the Law of Limitation or the Law of Court-fees etc.” 19. In Nirmala Bala Ghose V. Balai Chand Dhose: AIR 1965 SC 1874, it was held: “The rule is undoubtedly expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretion, and to cases where interference in favour of the appellant necessitates interference also with a decree which has by acceptance or acquiescence become final so as to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Where in an appeal the Court reaches a conclusion which is inconsistent with the opinion of the Court appealed from and in adjusting the right claimed by the appellant it is necessary to grant relief to a person who has not appealed, the power conferred by O.41, R.33 may properly be invoked. The rule, however, does not confer an unrestricted right to re- open decrees which have become final merely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of the Court appealed from.” 20. In Mahant Dhangir and another v. Shri Madan Mohan and others (AIR 1988 SC 54), it was held: “.. The appellate court could pass any decree or order which ought to have been passed in the circumstances of the case. The appellate court could also pass such other decree or order as the case may require. The words “as the case may require” used in R.33 of O.41 have been put in wide terms to enable the appellate court to pass any order or decree to meet the ends of justice. What then should be the constraint ? We do not find many. We are not giving any liberal F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 13 :: interpretation. The rule itself is liberal enough. The only constraints that we could see may be these: That the parties before the lower court should be there before the appellate court. The question raised must properly arise out of judgment of the lower court. If these two requirements are there, the appellate court could consider any objection against any part of the judgment or decree of the lower court. It may be urged by any party to the appeal. It is true that the power of the appellate court under R.33 is discretionary. But it is a proper exercise of judicial discretion to determine all questions urged in order to render complete justice between the parties. The court should not refuse to exercise that discretion on mere technicalities.” 21. We also find support from the following decisions of the Supreme Court. Harihar Prasad Singh and others v. Balmiki Prasad Singh and others (AIR 1975 SC 733); Chaya and others v. Bapusaheb and others ((1994) 2 SCC 41); K.Muthuswami Gounder v. N.Palaniappa Gounder (AIR 1998 SC 3118); M/s.Bihar Supply Syndicate v. Asiatic Navigation and others (AIR 1993 SC 2054) and Narayanarao v. Sudarshan (1995 Suppl (4) SCC 463). 22. Rule 33 of Order XLI of the Code of Civil Procedure is based on the principle that the appellate court should have the power to do complete justice between the parties. It also aims to F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 14 :: avoid contradictory decrees. The Rule confers wide discretionary power on the appellate court. However, the discretion is to be exercised with great care and caution. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of exercise of the power. Each case must depend upon the facts of the case. The appellate court allowed the appeal filed by the appellant/plaintiff and remanded the case to the trial court. The question whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of declaration has to be considered by the trial court, in view of the remand of the suit. If so, the decree for injunction passed by the trial court, which relief was prayed as a consequential relief, could not remain as such. After retaining the decree on the consequential relief, the prayer for declaration could not be directed to be considered afresh. Therefore, the course open to the appellate court was to direct the trial court to consider all the issues involved in the suit. That was certainly in consonance with the provisions of Rule 33 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 23. We are of the view that the lower appellate Court was justified in dismissing the application. The suit was filed in 1990. For the reason that the trial court did not deal with the suit in a proper manner, following the mandate of Rule 2 of Order XIV of the F.A.O. NO.258 OF 2008 :: 15 :: Code of Civil Procedure, disposal of the suit was delayed by about nineteen years. For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal. (KURIAN JOSEPH) Judge (K.T.SANKARAN) Judge