SANT LAL Vs. ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Sant Lal has filed this Regular Second Appeal against judgment and decree passed by Shri M.M. Sharma Sub Judge 1st Class, Narnaul which was affirmed in appeal preferred by the appellant by Shri P.L. Khanduja, Additional District Judge, Narnaul with the modification that even though the trial Court had granted future interest at the rate of 12.5% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the realisation of the decretal amount, the appellate Court granted the said rate of interest per annum with half yearly rest.

(2.) The only contention raised on behalf of the appellant is that in an appeal preferred by the appellant wherein no cross-objections were filed nor even an independent appeal, the appellate Court while dismissing the suit of the plaintiff could not grant to the respondent-bank anything more than what was granted by the trial Judge. In these circumstances the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure were also not applicable. The learned counsel representing the respondent-bank has not been able to controvert the contention of the learned counsel for appellant noted above. This Court is also of the view that in an appeal preferred by a party against the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court, if the said appeal is to be dismissed, the appellate Court can not grant to the respondent, the relief which has not been granted to the trial Judge. The provisions of Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure come into play only when rights of the parties need to be adjusted. In other words, when some relief is to be granted, the appellate Court with a view to adjust rights of the parties can even decide those issues in favour of the respondent which had been turned against it by the trial Court.

(3.) It requires to be mentioned that this appeal was admitted to D.B. for the reason that there was some controversy with regard to right of interest pendente lite and future as also at what rate the interest is to be granted. This matter has been clinched by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Corporation Bank v. D.S. Gowda, 1994 ISJ(Banking) 594followed by another judgment of the apex Court in Bank of Baroda v. Jagannath Pigment and Chem., 1996 112 PunLR 193 , which we have also followed in the resent decision in C.R. 1471 of 1994 M/s. Chandigarh Marble Industries and Ors. v. New Bank of India and another, 1998 ISJ(Banking) 391].