Whether appellate court can interfere in decree passed by trial court in absence of cross objection if that decree grants relief to appellant contrary to law?

As a general principle, an appellate court cannot disturb a decree that is in favor of a party who has not filed an appeal or cross-objection. The law establishes that “in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by a respondent, the appellate court has no power to disturb the decree of the lower court so far as it is in favour of the appellant”.

This rule ensures that a decree becomes binding on the parties unless it is properly challenged through the prescribed procedural mechanisms.

Exception: Order 41 Rule 33 CPC

However, there is a significant exception under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which grants appellate courts wide powers to do complete justice between the parties. The Supreme Court has clarified that while the general rule holds good, “in exceptional cases the Rule enables the appellate court to pass a such decree or order as ought to have been passed, even if such decree or order would be in favor of parties who have not preferred any appeal”.

Conditions for Interference

The appellate court’s power under Order 41 Rule 33 can be exercised even in favor of a party who has not filed any appeal or cross-objection, but this discretion must be exercised with care and caution and only in rare cases.

Key circumstances where interference may be justified:

• Questions of Law: When the decree involves questions of law that do not require additional evidence, particularly those concerning jurisdiction

• Jurisdictional Issues: Courts can entertain challenges to jurisdiction at any stage since “an order or decree passed without jurisdiction is nonest in law”

• Decrees Contrary to Law: When the trial court’s decree is manifestly contrary to established legal principles

Supreme Court’s Position

The Supreme Court has held that a party can challenge adverse findings in a favorable decree without filing a cross-objection, especially when it involves jurisdictional or legal issues. The Court emphasized that “though the appellant did not assail the finding of the Trial Court on the issue of jurisdiction before the High Court under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC either by filing a memorandum of cross-objection or otherwise, he is not precluded from raising the argument before this Court”.

Practical Application

In the landmark case of K. Muthuswami Gounder v. N. Palaniappa Gounder, the High Court exercised powers under Order 41 Rule 33 to dismiss a suit even though there was no appeal by the respondent against the decree passed in favor of the appellant. This demonstrates that when a decree is contrary to law, appellate courts can intervene even without a cross-appeal.

Conclusion

While appellate courts generally cannot interfere with decrees favoring non-appealing parties, they possess exceptional powers under Order 41 Rule 33 CPC to ensure complete justice. This power can be exercised when the decree is contrary to law, involves jurisdictional issues, or raises questions of law, but such intervention should be limited to exceptional circumstances and exercised with judicial restraint.