1. Suit for recovery of money — Trial court decree — First appeal — Application for impleadment of parties — High Court remand for fresh trial. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2021 Supreme(SC) 828
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
IL and FS Engineering and Constructions Company Ltd. - Appellant
Versus
M/s. Bhargavarama Constructions & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No.7639 of 2021
Decided on : 16-12-2021
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, Advocate
For the Appellant(s) :Vishnu Shankar Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent(s):Mahalakshmi Pavani, G. Balaji, Advocate
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
There cannot be automatic allowing of appeal and quashing and setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial court without any further entering into merits of appeal.
There cannot be automatic allowing of appeal and quashing and setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial court without any further entering into merits of appeal.
Subject
Civil Law - First Appeal
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order XLI Rule 31 and Section 96 – First Appeal – Disposal of – There cannot be automatic allowing of appeal and quashing and setting aside judgment and decree passed by trial court without any further entering into merits of appeal and/or expressing anything on merits in appeal on an impleadment of a party in an appeal – Without framing points for determination and considering both facts and law; without proper discussion and assigning the reasons, First Appellate Court cannot dispose of first appeal under Section 96 CPC and that too without raising points for determination as provided under Order XLI Rule 31 CPC – Appeal allowed with exemplary cost quantified at Rs.25,000/-to be deposited by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein with State Legal Services Authority of concerned High Court. (Paras 6 and 7)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh passed in CCCA No.99 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and has remanded the matter to the trial court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
High Court has not only directed to implead the A.P. Transco as party to the appeal but has also directed to implead the A.P. Transco in the original suit also. It is required to be noted that as such the suit was filed by the appellant - original plaintiff and as per the settled proposition of law, the plaintiff is the dominus litis. No issue was raised before the trial court on non-joinder of parties. Therefore, as such whether in the appeal preferred by the original defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, such an application would be maintainable or not, that itself is a question, which was required to be first considered and decided by the High Court.
Result : Appeal allowed with costs.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether the High Court could set aside a trial court decree and remand the matter solely based on the allowance of an impleadment application. (Para 2 , 3 )
3. High Court erred by setting aside the decree without merit analysis; plaintiff is dominus litis; first appeals require adherence to Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. (Para 5 , 6 )
4. A first appellate court cannot set aside a decree solely on the ground of impleading a party without considering merits or following Order XLI Rule 31 CPC. (Para 5 , 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — High Court order set aside — Matter remanded to High Court to decide impleadment application and first appeal on merits — Exemplary costs imposed. (Para 7 )
6. Can a first appellate court set aside a trial court decree solely because a party was impleaded?
No. The court held that there cannot be an automatic quashing of a judgment and decree upon the impleadment of a party without the court entering into the merits of the appeal or expressing findings on the merits. (Para 5 , 6 )
7. What are the procedural requirements for a First Appellate Court under Section 96 and Order XLI Rule 31 of the CPC?
The First Appellate Court must frame points for determination, consider both facts and law, and provide proper discussion and reasons before disposing of a first appeal. (Para 6 )
8. Who determines the parties to be joined in a civil suit?
The plaintiff is the dominus litis, meaning the plaintiff generally controls the choice of parties to be sued in the original suit. (Para 5 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 11.09.2017 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh passed in CCCA No.99 of 2017 by which the High Court has allowed the said appeal and has quashed and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and has remanded the matter to the trial court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein - original plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of Rs.47,90,088/-, along with interest of 18% from the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein original defendants. The said suit came to be decreed by the trial court. The judgment and decree passed by the trial court came to be challenged by the original defendants - respondent Nos. 1 and 2 before the High Court by way of CCCA No. 99 of 2017. In the said appeal, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 herein - original defendants moved a miscellaneous application seeking impleadment of A.P. Transco and MAYTAS Infra Pvt. Ltd. as party respondents to the first appeal on the ground that the subject work, which was given to the defendant No.1 by the appellant, was originally given by A.P. Transco to the appellant. The High Court by the impugned order without assigning any reasons as to why the proposed respondents have to be impleaded in the first appeal, allowed the said application and directed to implead A.P. Transco as party to the appeal as well as to the original suit. Not only that, while allowing the said application for impleadment, thereafter, without further entering into the merits and/or expressing anything on merits and solely on the ground that as the application for impleadment was allowed, the High Court set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court and remanded the matter to the trial court with a direction to the trial court to decide the suit afresh after affording an opportunity to the impleaded party to lead evidence in the suit.
3. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal.
4. We have heard the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties at length.
5. We have gone through the impugned order passed by the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, which was in favour of the appellant herein - original plaintiff, solely on the ground that the application for impleadment filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 - original defendants -appellants before the High Court to implead A.P. Transco has been allowed and, therefore, the judgment and decree is set aside. This is not the manner in which the High Court was required to deal with the first appeal arising out of the judgment and decree passed by the trial court. Nothing has been observed and/or decided on merits. Even no reasoning has been given why the A.P. Transco was required to be impleaded as a party to the appeal. The High Court has not only directed to implead the A.P. Transco as party to the appeal but has also directed to implead the A.P. Transco in the original suit also. It is required to be noted that as such the suit was filed by the appellant - original plaintiff and as per the settled proposition of law, the plaintiff is the dominus litis. No issue was raised before the trial court on non-joinder of parties. Therefore, as such whether in the appeal preferred by the original defendants against the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, such an application would be maintainable or not, that itself is a question, which was required to be first considered and decided by the High Court.
6. Even otherwise, assuming that the application to implead the A.P. Transco as a party to the appeal on an application filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2- original defendants was maintainable and was to be allowed i
