SAKHARAM Vs. SARDAR MADHAV RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question for consideration in this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is whether two of the defendants can execute the entire decree for costs in a case in which the Court of first instance directed the plaintiffs to pay to each of the nine defendants the costs incurred by him. In the appeal filed by the plaintiff the High Court also awarded costs jointly payable to all the defendants without interefering with the direction about the costs of the first Court. THE question arises only in relation to execution of the decree for costs of the first Court.

(2.) THE executing Court held that two of the defendants could execute the entire decree for costs of the first Court. In appeal, Krishnan J. took the view that, although there was a joint decree, the share of each defendant had been apportioned and since, by virtue of the apportionment, each defendant; was competent to levy execution for his share, he was incompetent to take advantage of the jointness of the decree for levying execution for the entirety.

(3.) IT is not enough that there is a decree in favour of more persons than one and that fact alone will not necessarily attract Rule 15. In. this connection we may refer to the enabling provision contained in Order 1, Rule 1 of the Code which, in certain circumstances therein indicated, enables several plaintiffs claiming severally different reliefs arising out of the same act or transaction to join in one suit as plaintiffs. IT is implicit in Rule 1 that a decree may be passed severally in favour of more persons than one, entitling each to claim the relief awarded to him. Rule 15 applies only when a decree "has been passed jointly in favour of more persons than one".