MIRLE L KRISHNA MURTHY Vs. K VENKATARAMAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of certain amounts or in, the alternative to render accounts was decreed against the first defendant. The allegations made against the second defendant was that he guaranteed the liability of the first defendant under an instrument of guarantee- Ex.P1-dt.16-8-1968. Suffice it to say, there was no decree against the second defendant. The decree dt.5-1-1971 states that the amount due from the first defendant shall be determined by considering his accounts.

(2.) The first defendant appealed before the Court of the District Judge, Bangalore. The appeal was preferred within the period of limitation. The respondent-plaintiff, after receipt of notice of the appeal, filed cross-objections under Or.41, Rule 22 CPC., along with I.A.-III to implead the second defendant as a party-respondent to the appeal. The said applicatoin was filed on 1-10-1971. The appellate Judge, by the order under revision dismissed the said application stating that it was entirely misconceived .

(3.) The question whether a respondent could by way of cross-objections seek relief against another person who is not a party to the appeal, falls for decision in this revision petition.