Case: THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH Vs. B. RANGA REDDY (D) BY L.R

on the judgment in Ashok Nagar Welfare Association is not relevant for the present case as question examined was the scope of interference in the Special Leave Petition. That was a case whether an ex parte decree granted in two suits by the trial court was set aside in appeal. The Special Leave Petition was directed against such order. This Court has rightly not interfered with the setting aside the ex parte judgment. Bhanu Kumar Jain is also a case delineating the remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex parte decree granted. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. 35) Another judgment referred to by Mr. Dave is Nirmala Bala Ghose. In the said case, the decree against deity had attained finality in two suits. It was held that it is not open to another defendant to challenge the decree insofar as it is against deities. The Court has held as under: 23. In this appeal, the two deities are also impleaded as party respondents. But the deities have not taken part in the proceeding before this Court, as they did not in the High Court. The decree against the two deities has become final, no appeal having been preferred to the High Court by the deities. It is not open to Nirmala to challenge the decree insofar as it is against the deities, because she does not represent the deities. The rights conferred by the deed Ext. 11 upon Nirmala are not affected by the decree of the trial court. She is not seeking in this appeal to claim a mere exalted right under the deed for herself, which may require re-examination even incidentally of the correctness of the decision of the trial court and the High Court insofar as it relates to the title of the deities. It was urged, however, that apart from the claim which Nirmala has made for herself, the Court has power and is indeed bound under Order 41 Rule 33 Code of Civil Procedure to pass a decree, if on a consideration of the relevant provisions of the deed, this Court comes to the conclusion that the deed operates as an absolute dedication in favour of the two deities. Order 41 Rule 313, insofar as it is material, provides: The appellate court shall have power to pass any decree and make any order which ought to have been passed or made 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: 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 Order 41 Rule 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. 36) We find that the High Court has failed to draw the distinction between the decree and a finding on an issue. It is the decree against which an appeal lies in terms of Section 96 of the Code. Decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code means formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties. The defendants-State could not file an appeal against a decree which was of a dismissal of a suit simpliciter. The findings on Issue No. 1 against the State could be challenged by way of cross-objections in terms of amended provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code but such filing of cross-objections is not necessary to dispute the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 as the defendants have a right to support the ultimate decree passed by the trial court of dismissal of suit on grounds other than which weighed with the learned trial court. Even in terms of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, the Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to pass any order which ought to have been passed or made in proceedings before it. 37) As per facts on record, Original Suit Nos. 274 of 1983 and 276 of 1983 have been dismissed. The plaintiffs are in appeal in both the suits before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, such decree including the finding on Issue No. 1 has not attained finality as the Appellate Court is ceased of the entire controversy including the findings of fact on Issue No. 1. The defendants have a right to dispute such findings by filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code as amended in the year 1976 or even in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code. 38) The decree is of dismissal of the suit, whereas, the reasons for passing such decree is judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code. In terms of Section 11 read with Explanation I, the issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata only if such issue is raised in a subsequent suit. Since, the issue of title has not attained finality, therefore, it is not a former suit to which there can be any application of Section 11.

Court's decision (1 = petition accepted / positive for appellant, 0 = rejected / negative): 1

Reasoning from the judgment:
1[ds]12) The High Court referred to various judgments in respect of applicability of the principle of res judicata, therefore, non-filing of the appeal by the State in the other two suits operates as res judicata. The High Court referred to a judgment of this Court in Sheodan Singh wherein, this Court held that once a decree passed in the suit attains finality, it cannot be disturbed indirectly by adjudicating the very same questions in another appeal. We find that the findings recorded by the High Court are patently erroneous for the reasons recorded hereinafter. Therefore, non-filing of the appeal by the State in the other two suits operates as res judicata in the third suitIn Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple, the Court referred to judgment in Chitivalasa Jute Mills. However, we find that distinction drawn by learned counsel for the respondents is not tenable in law. Chitivalasa Jute Mills is a case where one suit was filed at Reva in Madhya Pradesh and another in Vishakhapatnam. The Court noticed that claim in one suit is a defense in another suit, therefore, the order was passed for transfer of a subsequent suit filed at Reva to Vishakhapatnam15) In the present case, evidence have been recorded only in one suit as all the three suits have been clubbed together. In view of the said fact, we find that merely the word consolidation has not been used by the learned trial court, therefore, it will not be a case of consolidation of suits but of separate trials15) In the present case, evidence have been recorded only in one suit as all the three suits have been clubbed together. In view of the said fact, we find that merely the word consolidation has not been used by the learned trial court, therefore, it will not be a case of consolidation of suits but of separate trials19) The present is a case where the decree is of dismissal of suit therefore, entirely in favour of the State and not executable. Though an issue has been decided against the State as falling within second and third situation delineated by this Court. This Court held that in the absence of cross appeals or cross objections, the First Appellate Court did not have the jurisdiction to modify the decree that is to grant decree for specific performance which was not granted by the trial court23) It may be noticed that separate decree is required to be preferred in each suit even though the suits are consolidated. The three- Judge Bench in Sri Gangai Vinayagar Temple has categorically held that where a common judgment has been delivered in cases in which consolidation orders have been passed, the filing of an appeal leads to the entire dispute becoming sub judice again. The aforesaid judgment arises out of the fact whether tenant has filed a suit to protect its possession during the lease period which was coming to an end on January 1, 1983, claiming injunction not specifically challenging the alienation by the trustees of a public trust. The trustees have filed two separate suits for claiming arrears of rent, one for claiming Rs. 268/- and another for Rs. 2600/24) The tenants suit and the suit for the recovery of Rs. 2600/- were dismissed. Only one appeal was preferred by the tenant against the decree passed in the suit for recovery of Rs. 268/-. In these circumstances, it was held that since the claim of the tenant in his suit was substantially in respect of the right of the trustees to alienate the property of the trust as alleged by the tenant, which is the issue in the other suits as well, therefore, the decree in the suit for injunction filed by the plaintiff would operate as res judicata. But in the present case, an appeal in the first and second suit is pending in which the appellant has right to support decree in terms of Order XLI Rules 22 and 33 of the CodeThe election of the appellant was challenged before the Election Tribunal on the ground that the appellant was holding an office of profit and, therefore, it is against the provisions of Section 7 of the Representation of the People Act, 1951. There was allegation that appellant had also committed corrupt practices. On the other hand, respondent filed a petition praying for the declaration that the election of the appellant was void and also claimed declaration that he was duly elected having polled more votes after appellant- elected candidate. The Election Tribunal found that the appellant was not holder of office of profit but held that he is guilty of corrupt practices. The election of the appellant was set aside but did not grant the declaration that the respondent was duly elected candidate. The appellant filed Election Appeal No. 7 of 1958 whereas the respondent filed Election Appeal No. 8 of 1958 in the High Court against the order of the Election Tribunal. The appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed holding that he was holding office of profit but has not indulged in corrupt practice whereas the appeal filed by the respondent was allowed by a common judgment declaring the respondent to be duly elected. The appellant filed appeal before this Court only against the order in Appeal No. 8 of 1958. All the grounds of the appeal relate to the finding of the High Court in Appeal No. 7 of 1958. In appeal before this Court, a preliminary objection was taken that no appeal was preferred by the appellant against the order of the High Court in Appeal No. 7 of 1958. The Court distinguished the earlier judgment in Narhari. It held that though Appeal Nos. 7 and 8 of 1958 arose out of one proceeding but subject matter of each appeal was different, therefore, the final judgment would operate as res judicata. The relevant findings read as under:14. It is true that both the Appeals Nos. 7 and 8 before the High Court arose out of one proceeding before the Election Tribunal. The subject-matter of each appeal was, however, different. The subject-matter of Appeal No. 7 filed by the appellant related to the question of his election being bad or good, in view of the pleadings raised before the Election Tribunal. It had nothing to do with the question of right of Respondent 1 to be declared as duly elected candidate……….. The finding about his holding an office of profit served the purpose of both the appeals, but merely because of this the decision of the High Court in each appeal cannot be said to be one decision. The High Court came to two decisions. It came to one decision in respect of the invalidity of the appellants election in Appeal No. 7. It came to another decision in Appeal No. 8 with respect to the justification of the claim of Respondent 1 to be declared as a duly elected candidate, a decision which had to follow the decision that the election of the appellant was invalid and also the finding that Respondent 2, as Ghatwal, was not a properly nominated candidate. We are therefore of opinion that so long as the order in the appellants appeal No. 7 confirming the order setting aside his election on the ground that he was a holder of an office of profit under the Bihar Government and therefore could not have been a properly nominated candidate stands, he cannot question the finding about his holding an office of profit, in the present appeal, which is founded on the contention that that finding is incorrect26) The said judgment has no applicability to the facts of the present case as the decree in Civil Suit No. 274 of 1983 or 276 of 1983 has not attained finality and the same are still subject matter of appeal before the First Appellate Court wherein, the findings recorded by the trial court can be set aside while maintaining ultimate decree of dismissal of the suit. In Badri Narayan Singh, the decision in an appeal became final, holding the appellant to be not duly elected candidate. The Appeal No. 8 of 1958 was in respect of declaration that the respondent shall be deemed to be elected candidate. Therefore, in the absence of finality of judgments, there cannot be any question of such finding binding in the third suit31) Mr. Dave vehemently argued that res judicata in terms of Section 11 of the Code is not about a decree but to a finding in the former suit. It is argued that the first suit and second suit are the former suits in which the findings were written against the State, therefore, such findings will operate res judicata. The said argument proceeds on the basis that the Court would mean the High Court and, therefore, finding in the first and second suit would bar the subsequent proceedings arising out of the third suit in appeal. We find that such an argument is not tenable. As mentioned above, that the decree of dismissal of the first and second suit has not attained finality which are under challenge by the plaintiffs and the defendants-State are entitled to dispute findings on Issue No. 1 even without filing cross objections or in terms of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code that the decree of dismissal of suit on the grounds other than what weighed with the learned trial court. All the issues are open for consideration before the First Appellate Court32) Section 11 and Explanation I of the Code would be applicable in subsequent proceedings between the same parties or between the parties under whom they or any of them claimed under the same title. But the findings in the first and second suit will not operate as res judicata as such findings are subject matter of challenge in the appeals filed by the plaintiffs in their respective suits. All the three suits have been decided together and the three appeals pending against such judgment and decrees. Therefore, it cannot be said that the first and the second suit are the former suits as the decree passed therein has not attained finality. The findings recorded therein will not, therefore, operate as res judicata as the State is not obliged to challenge findings on Issue No.1 in the first and second suit even after the amendment of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code34) The reliance of Mr. Dave on the judgment in Ashok Nagar Welfare Association is not relevant for the present case as question examined was the scope of interference in the Special Leave Petition. That was a case whether an ex parte decree granted in two suits by the trial court was set aside in appeal. The Special Leave Petition was directed against such order. This Court has rightly not interfered with the setting aside the ex parte judgment. Bhanu Kumar Jain is also a case delineating the remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex parte decree granted. The said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case36) We find that the High Court has failed to draw the distinction between the decree and a finding on an issue. It is the decree against which an appeal lies in terms of Section 96 of the Code. Decree in terms of Section 2(2) of the Code means formal expression of an adjudication conclusively determining the rights of the parties. The defendants-State could not file an appeal against a decree which was of a dismissal of a suit simpliciter. The findings on Issue No. 1 against the State could be challenged by way of cross-objections in terms of amended provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code but such filing of cross-objections is not necessary to dispute the findings recorded on Issue No. 1 as the defendants have a right to support the ultimate decree passed by the trial court of dismissal of suit on grounds other than which weighed with the learned trial court. Even in terms of Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code, the Appellate Court has the jurisdiction to pass any order which ought to have been passed or made in proceedings before it37) As per facts on record, Original Suit Nos. 274 of 1983 and 276 of 1983 have been dismissed. The plaintiffs are in appeal in both the suits before the First Appellate Court. Therefore, such decree including the finding on Issue No. 1 has not attained finality as the Appellate Court is ceased of the entire controversy including the findings of fact on Issue No. 1. The defendants have a right to dispute such findings by filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code as amended in the year 1976 or even in the exercise of the powers conferred on the Appellate Court under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code38) The decree is of dismissal of the suit, whereas, the reasons for passing such decree is judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code. In terms of Section 11 read with Explanation I, the issue in a former suit will operate as res judicata only if such issue is raised in a subsequent suit. Since, the issue of title has not attained finality, therefore, it is not a former suit to which there can be any application of Section 11.