1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA MISCELLANEOUS CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 244 OF 2009 1. M/s Rajaram N. S. Bandekar & Company Pvt. Ltd., a Private Limited Company constituted and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956 having its registered office at Nitin Chambers, Swatantra Path, Vasco da Gama, through its Managing Director Shri Narayan R. Bandekar, Major, married, businessman, residing at Vasco da Gama. 2. M/s Gopiganga Ore Carriers, a Partnership Firm, duly registered under the Partnership Act 1932, having its Registered Office at Usnori Building, 2nd floor, Kharewadda, Vasco-da-Gama and through its Managing Partner Shri P. Rajendra Prasad, S/o Shri Gopinath Nair, major, married, resident of Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Applicants versus 1. The Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. subsidiary of General Insurance Corporation of India, having its Registered Office at Oriental House, P.B. No.7037, A-25/27 Asaf Ali Road, 2 New Delhi 110 002 And through its Divisional Office and Divisional Manager, Salgaocar Annexe Building, P.O.Box 105, Vasco da Gama, Goa. 2. M/s Kenkre Gude Shipping Pvt. Ltd., a private limited company constituted and incorporated under the Companies Act 1956 having its Registered Office at 17-A, D. Kossambi Building, Vasco-da-Gama, Goa. ... Respondents. Shri A. F. Diniz, Advocate for the Applicants. Shri E. Afonso, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Shri R. G. Ramani, Advocate for Respondent No.2. CORAM : NARESH H. PATIL & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. DATE : 10TH FEBRUARY, 2010. ORAL ORDER(Per N. A. BRITTO, J.) By the present application, the Applicants/Appellants/Plaintiffs seek to condone delay of 56 days in filing an application for review against Judgment/Order dated 14-11-2008. 2. Heard learned Counsel on behalf of all parties. In the suit filed by the aforesaid plaintiffs the only witness examined was one Minanath Porob 3 claiming to be the attorney of plaintiff no.1. The plaintiff no.1 is an inanimate entity. The present application has been filed again on behalf of both the applicants, and an affidavit has been filed of one Felix Fernandes who claims to be the attorney of plaintiff no.1. The statements made in the application is that the applicants were advised just a few days ago that they had first to file the review application as the ground taken was not reflected in the Judgment. One does not know who advised whom, more so when the applicant no.1, as already stated, is an inanimate entity. Needless to say, the application has been filed in a most casual manner, and, therefore needs to be rejected. Even otherwise, we find there is no merit in the application for review. The Division Bench appreciated the evidence and has rendered its findings. Whether on appreciation of evidence another view was possible cannot be a ground for review. 3. Shri A. F. Diniz, learned Counsel on behalf of the applicants submits that there are two errors apparent on the face of the record, namely that in the absence of any cross objections having been filed by the respondents the finding of negligence given by the trial Court could not be disturbed, and the admissions made by PW1/Porob could not have been relied upon once it was held that he had no authority to depose on behalf of the plaintiffs. He has relied upon the case of Smt. Padmadevi Shankarrao Jadhav and others v. Shri Kabalsingh Garmilsing Sardarji and 4 others(1986(1) Bom. C.R. 279). In our view, both the submissions made cannot be considered as errors apparent on the face of the record but on the contrary they are findings given based either on law or facts which cannot be corrected in review jurisdiction. 4. Nevertheless, it may be stated that the Apex Court in S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank of Mysore((2007) 11 SCC 75) has clearly held with reference to Order 41, Rule 22 of C.P.C. that the respondent in an appeal is entitled to support the decree of the trial Court even by challenging any of the findings that might have been rendered by the trial Court against himself and for supporting the decree passed by the trial Court it is not necessary for the respondent to file memorandum of cross objections challenging a particular finding that is rendered by the trial Court against him when the ultimate decree itself is in his favour. A memorandum of cross objections is needed only if the respondent claims any relief which has been negatived to him by the trial Court and in addition to what he has already been given by the decree under challenge. The Apex Court has also held in K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder((1998) 7 SCC 327) that Order 41, Rule 33 enables the appellate court to pass any decree or order which ought to have been made and to make such further order or decree as the case may be in favour of all or any of the parties even though (i) the appeal is as to part only of the decree; and (ii) such party or parties may not have filed an appeal. The necessary condition for 5 exercising the power under the Rule is that the parties to the proceedings are before the court and the question raised properly arises out of one of the judgments of the lower Court and in that event, the appellate court could consider any objection to any part of the order or decree of the court and set it right. 5. The finding on admissions was not only based on the evidence of the said PW1/Porob but also on the documents produced by him. 6. In view of the above, we find there is no merit in both the applications, and consequently we proceed to dismiss the same, with costs. NARESH H. PATIL, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD