Order XLI, Rule 14 (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as amended in 1976, requires that notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal be served on all respondents, including those who were ex-parte in the court below, unless they have appeared and filed an address for service or have appeared in the appeal.

( 1 ) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is preferred by the claimants in OP 207/84 before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-District Judge, Nizamabad. The claimants are five innumber and they impleaded the General Manager and the depot Manager of the APSRTC as respondents 1 and 2 in the OP. They also impleaded the driver of the vehicle one V Narayana as respondent No. 3. The OP was disposed of on 23-12-1985 in favour of the appellants awarding a compensation of Rs. 36,000/- against all the respondents who were impleaded in the OP ineluding the driver. It may be noted that the driver remained exparte before the tribunal as in clear from the decree. Against the said judgment the General Manager and the Depot Manager of the APSRTC preferred CMA 637/86 to this Court. In the said appeal they impleaded the claimants as respondents 1 to 5 and the driver as the 6th respondent. Unfortunately the appeal was dismissed for default against the driver on 6-9-1989 for nonpayment of batta. If the appeal was not dismissed as stated above against the driver, the present difficulty would not have arisen.

( 2 ) IN the above said CMA the claimants filed Cross Objections. In the cross Objections they showed the General Manager and the Depot Manager as respondents 1 and 2 and the driver v Narayana as 3rd respondent. An endorsement was made below the cause-title that the 3rd respondent ia the Cross objections was not a necessary party to the Cross Objections. The appeal was heard and disposed of by the learned single Judge on 20-12-1989. After dismissing the appeal, the learned Judge, when he came to the Cross Objections merely stated that the Cross Objections do not merit any consideration. There was no discussion.

( 3 ) IN so far as the learned Judge dismissed the Cross Objections, the Claimants have preferred this Letters Patent appeal.

( 4 ) WHEN the matter has come up before us for admission, the learned standing counsel for APSRTC Sri K. Harinath has taken an objection regarding the maintainability of this appeal. He pointed out that in the Cross Objections filed by the claimants before the learned single Judge it was stated that the driver (3rd respondent in the Cross objections) was not a necessary party. The contention is that it is not open to the claimants) to implead the driver as a respondent in this Letters Patent Appeal.

( 5 ) IT is to be noticed that Order xli Rule 14 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure had been amended in Madras in 1927 by incorporating a Proviso which stated that if a respondent was ex-parte in the Court below notice to him should be dispensed within the appeal. Following the said rule, which is applicable in andhra Pradesh, it has been the practice to show the name of a particular party as a respondent in the cause-title and make an endorsement that no notice need go to him in the appeal when the said respondent remained ex-parte in the trial Court. The above said rule was, howover, modified when the Civil Procedure Code was amended in 1976. We now have Order xli, Rule 14 (4), which reads as follows:-"order XLI, Rule 14 (4) : Not withstanding anything to the contrary contained in sub-rule (1) it shall not be necessary to serve notice of any proceeding incidental to an appeal on any respondent other than a person impleaded for the first time in the appellate Court, unless he has appeared and filed an address for service in the Court of first instance or has appeared in the appeal". After the said amendment, it has become necessary to take out notices to a party respondent who has remained ex-parte in the lower court, by impleading him in the appeal as a respondent, for the purpose of a decision in the main appeal. So far as the grant of interim orders are concerned, the above said rule in Order XLI, Rule 14 (4) states notice is not necessary. In other words, if a respondent had remained ex-parte in the trial Court, notices need not be taken out to him while the Appellate court is passing orders in interlocutory applic

Click Here to Read the rest of this document