1. Money suit for recovery on account and cross-claim for rendering accounts of pledged goods — Final decree proceedings and execution of separate decrees. (Para 3 , 4 , 6 )
Back
Next 
1997 Supreme(SC) 51
1997(3) Supreme 622
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. A.S. Anand and S.B. Majmudar, J.
Mahendra Singh Jaggi etc. -Appellants
versus
Dataram Jagnnath -Respondent
(With Vice Versa)
Civil Appeal No. 156 of 1997
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10981 of 1987)
With
(C.A. No. 157 of 1997 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12429 of 1990; and C.A. No. 158 of 1997 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 6392 of 1995)
Decided on 15-1-1997
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant in C.A. No. 156 & 158/97 : In-person and Ranjit Kumar, Advocate.
For the Appellant in C.A.No. 157/97 : Ashok Kumar Gupta, Advocate.
For the Respondent in C.A.No. 157/97 : Ranjit Kumar Advocate.
Order XXI Rule 19 of the CPC applies only when two parties are entitled to recover sums of money under the same decree. It cannot be used to adjust claims arising from separate decrees, even if those decrees were passed within the same suit.
Headnote:(i) Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order XXI Rule 19-Execution in case of cross-claims under same decree-Applicability-Words application for execution of a decree under which two parties are entitled to recover sums of money -There should be two rival claims by contesting parties against each other arising out of very same decree which is sought to be executed by one of the parties against another-Plaintiff s money decree-Defendants s final accounts decree-Whether plaintiff could have resorted to provisions of Order XXI Rule 19 for getting his claim under money decree adjusted against defendant s final accounts decree against him?-(No)-Both the decrees were also not passed at the same time. (Para 14)
(iii) Constitution of India-Article 136-Appeal-Civil suit for realisation of Rs.10723.63-Defendant s counter claim claiming certain amounts after taking accounts from plaintiff in respect of goods into his possession-Defendant claimed in all Rs. 47,478.86 from plaintiff on four items-Determination of appropriate amount which should be granted to defendant in final decree. (Paras 9 to 12)
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over the quantum of the final accounts decree and the maintainability of adjusting separate decretal amounts under Order XXI Rule 19, CPC. (Para 7 )
3. The court found double deduction of amounts already decreed in a money suit and determined that Order XXI Rule 19 applies only to cross-claims under the same decree. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 14 )
4. Order XXI Rule 19, CPC is applicable only where two parties are entitled to recover sums of money under the same decree, not separate decrees in the same suit. (Para 14 )
5. Final accounts decree modified to a specific sum with interest; application for adjustment under Order XXI Rule 19, CPC dismissed. (Para 12 , 15 )
6. When is Order XXI Rule 19 of the CPC applicable for the adjustment of decretal amounts?
It applies when two parties are entitled to recover sums of money under the same decree. It requires rival claims arising from the very same decree being executed, not separate decrees passed in the same suit. (Para 14 )
7. How should a court handle the deduction of amounts already awarded in a separate money decree during final accounts proceedings?
Amounts already awarded in a final money decree should not be deducted again during final accounts proceedings for a cross-claim, as this would result in a double deduction in favor of the decree-holder. (Para 10 )
8. What is the standard for awarding damages for the increase in value of goods retained by a party?
In the absence of clear-cut evidence on price fluctuations, the court may use reasonable estimates to award a justified amount for the increase in the rate of goods to avoid prolonging the litigation. (Para 11 )
JUDGMENT
S.B. Majmudar, J.-Leave granted in all these special leave petitions.
2. By consent of parties the appeals arising from these special leave petitions were heard finally and are being disposed of by this judgment as common questions are raised for our consideration in these appeals.
3. The appellant in appeals arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 10981 of 1987 and S.L.P. (C) No. 6392 of 1995 is Mahendra Singh Jaggi, party-in-person who was also permitted to be assisted by advocate Shri Ranjit Kumar who was good enough to appear amicus curiae for him at our request. We express our deep sense of appreciation for the service rendered by Shri Ranjit Kumar at our instance. We will refer to the appellant in these two appeals as defendant and the contesting respondent as the plaintiff. In appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 12429 of 1990 the plaintiff is the appellant while the defendant is the contesting respondent.
Disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant which have culminated in the present proceedings before us are spread over years and represent a chequered history. At the outset we may briefly indicate the background facts leading to the present proceedings.
4. The plaintiff filed a civil suit in 1961 in the Court of First Additional Subordinate Judge, Cuttack against the defendant for realisation of Rs. 10723.63 (Principal amount of Rs. 9385.09 plus interest Rs. 1338.54 @ 10% p.a.) on Khata account. According to the plaintiff he was a financier and had advanced moneys from time to time to the defendant for enabling him to party on his motor spare part business. According to the plaintiff the suit amount was falling due at the foot of account. In the said suit the defendant raised a counter-claim in his additional written statement claiming certain amounts after taking accounts from the plaintiff in respect of goods which came into his possession in pursuance of an agreement. The Trial Court decreed the plaintiff s suit against the defendant but also accepted the cross-claim of the defendant for accounts and passed a preliminary decree for accounts to be rendered by the plaintiff for the goods lying in his custody. The Trial Court observed that the details of the decree would be worked out in the final decree. The plaintiff carried the matter in appeal so far as preliminary decree for accounts was concerned. Defendant also appealed against the money decree passed in favour of the plaintiff. Defendant s appeal was dismissed by the High Court. Defendant did not challenge that appellate order any further. Thus money decree passed against the defendant became final but the plaintiff s appeal against the preliminary decree for accounts as passed against him in favour of the defendant was allowed by the High Court. It set aside that part of the judgment and decree of the Trial Court which directed the plaintiff to render accounts and dismissed the cross-claim made by the defendant in his additional written statement. The defendant, who was respondent in plaintiff s appeal, carried the matter in further appeal before this Court. A three member Bench of this Court speaking through S.M. Sikri, C.J., allowed the appeal of the defendant and restored the preliminary decree of accounts as passed in his favour by the Trial Court and directed the Trial Court to proceed further for passing final decree in accordance with law. The aforesaid decision of this Court is reported as Mohinder Singh Jaggi v. Data Ram Jagannath1. Pursuant to the preliminary decree for accounts as passed in favour of the defendant and against the plaintiff by this Court the final decree proceedings were resumed. The Commissioner for sprutinising the accounts as appointed by the Trial Court submitted his Report which was not acceptable to both the sides. After considering their objections to the Report ultimately the Trial Court passed a final decree for accounts in favour of the defendant awarding Rs. 5,268/- with profit at 10% as recommended by the aforesaid Comm
