The legal effect of exoneration on a party's status as a party to the suit and the appealability of the case under Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code.

Spencer, J.

1. O.S. No. 320 of 1918 was a suit brought by the 1st respondent upon a mortgage. The suit was decreed and the plaintiff purchased some of the suit property in Court auction. The 2nd defendant in the suit thereupon filed an application to set aside delivery of the items purchased on the ground that he had a paramount title which prevailed over the title of the mortgagor in consequence of more than 16 years possession after the property had been surrendered to him by the owner. The District Munsif found in favour of the petitioner and directed release of the property. On appeal to the Subordinate Judge by the decree-holder purchaser, the District Munsifs order was set aside and the petition was dismissed. It is now contended that no appeal lay to the Subordinate Judge on the ground that the appellant, though made a party to the suit, Was exonerated as he set up a title paramount to that of the mortgagor, and consequently the decree-holders remedy, if any, against the District Munsifs judgment was to bring a suit to set aside the order. The Subordinate Judge held that he could dispose of the appeal against the order under Section 47 as the claim petition was preferred by a party to the suit and he thought that the latest decision in Venkataswami v. Chitambaram (1917) 23 M.L.T. 206 was in favour of this view. Reliance is now placed upon Krishnappa v. Periyaswami (1916) I.L.R. 40M. 964 : 32 M.L.J. 532 The learned Judges who decided that case were inclined to the view that if a party was exonerated from a suit on the ground of misjoinder he would not remain a party to the suit for the purpose of Section 47 and that it was immaterial whether his name was actually removed from the record in pursuance of the order exonerating him. In Venkataswami v. Chitambaram (1917) 23 M.L.T. 206 Sadasiva Aiyar J. and Phillips J., took the view that the plain words of the Code were intended to give legal effect to the decision of the Full Bench in Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma (1900) I.L.R. 41 Mad 418 : 34 M.L.J. 126 (F B) and to overrule the previous decisions which had decided that a defendant whose name appears in the decree without being struck off was not a party to the suit, if he had been exonerated by the decree passed in the suit. In Sannamma v. Radhabai (1917) I.L.R. 41 Mad 418 : 34 M.L.J. 17 (F B) this case is quoted in the foot-note and Abdur Rahim, J., who was one of the referring Judges, expressed a doubt as to the correctness of Krishnappa v. Periyaswami (1916) I.L.R. 40M. 964 : 32 M.L.J. 532) and thought it required to be overruled, as it did not give sufficient effect to the plain language of the section. The decision of the Full Bench did not actually overrule Krishnappa v. Periyaswami (1916) I.L.R. 40M. 964 : 32 M.L.J. 532) as it was not necessary to do so in order to answer the questions referred to the Full Bench. The opinion of the Full Bench was that if a person had been properly implead-ed as a defendant in a suit and if the plaintiff abandoned his claim against him and the suit was dismissed as against him, such a person would still be " a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed" within the Explanation to Section 47 of the Civil Procedure Code. In Krishnappa v. Periyaswami (1916) I.L.R. 40M. 964 : 32 M.L.J. 532 the previous decision in Venkatapalhi Naidu v. Subraya Mudali (1907) 17 M.L.J. 416 was quoted with approval. This is a judgment of a single judge given before the amendment of the Code. With due respect I am unable to follow the learned Judge when he says that a party against whom a claim has been abandoned is clearly not a party to the suit. The mere exoneration of a party does not have the result of making him cease to be a party. It may mean only that the plaintiff does not want a decree against him as was the case in Ramaswami Sastrulu v. Kameswaramma (1900) I.L.R. 23 Mad 361 : 10 M.L.J. 126 (F B) In my opinion the ground upon which a party is exonerated can never determine whether