JUDGMENT: This order disposes of Regular Second Appeal No. 2424 of 1946 and the connected cross objections.

2. On the 11th of March, 1944 Amar Nath plaintiff instituted civil suit No. 167, of 1944 for perpetual injunction directing the defendant to close the parnala shown in red colour at letter A on the plan attached to the plaint.

3. Ali Ahmed defendant resisted the suit which was dismissed by the trial Court on the 31st of May, 1945 leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

4. From the decree passed by the trial Court on the 31st of May, 1945 Amar Nath plaintiff appealed in the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge at Jullundur. The appeal failed and was dismissed. In appeal the parties were left to bear their own costs.

5. In deciding issue No. 1 the appellate Court said:

"I hold that the place marked SNOT in the plan marked Exhibit A. 1, is the property of the plaintiff, while the place marked M S T L in A 1 is a part of the kucha and I decide accordingly."

6. In second appeal Ali Mohammad defendant-appellant urges that the lower appellate Court was in error in holding that the place marked SNOT in the plan Exhibit A. 1 was the property of the plaintiff.

7. As stated above, the plaintiffs suit was dismissed by the trial Court and plaintiffs appeal from the decree of the trial Court was dismissed by the Senior Subordinate Judge.

8. In order to give a party a right of appeal two conditions must be satisfied: (1) the subject-matter of appeal must be a decree, and (2) the party appealing must have been adversely affected by the decree under appeal.

9.Clearly, where a decree is absolutely in favour of a party but some issues are found against him, he has no right of appeal against the findings because he is, firstly, not adversely affected thereby and secondly because such findings are not embodied in and do not form part of the decree. Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an appeal from a decree passed in Appeal on conditions stated therein. That being so, a person who has obtained a decree in his favour cannot prefer an appeal on the ground that he is dissatisfied with a finding in the judgment.

10. Then it may be said that a decision, as a general rule, cannot be said to adversely affect a persons unless it will operate as res judicata, in a subsequent suit between the parties. In order to find out whether a decision will operate as res Judicata the substance of the decree must be considered. In the present case, the decree passed by the lower appellate Court affirms the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit. Clearly, finding of the lower appellate Court on issue No. 1 cannot operate as res judicata against Ali Mohammad defendant in a subsequent suit because the finding must be taken to have been superseded by the decree and thus not having been heard and finally decided.

11. For the reasons given above I find that Ali Ahmed defendant-appellant has no appealable grievance in R. S. A. No. 2424 of 1946.

12. Amar Nath plaintiff has cross-objected. In the cross-objections he maintains that the suit for injunction could not be dismissed.

13. Mr. Anand Mohan Suri urges that the cross-objections are barred by time and that Mr. Ram Nath Malhotra had no authority to file the cross-objections.

14. Dealing with the question of limitation I find that Amar Nath plaintiff was served in appeal on the 7th of February, 1947 and the cross-objections were filed on the 13 th of March, 1947. Clearly, the cross-objections are barred by time. On the 6th of March, 1947 Mr. Malhotra received telegraphic instructions to file cross-objections. The cross-objections were, however, filed by him on the 13th of March, 1947. That being so, there is no justification for extending the period for filing the cross-objections.

15. Mr. Anand Mohan Suri then contends that Mr. Ram Nath Malhotra had no authority to file the cross objections. No power of attorney authorising Mr. Ram Nath Malhotra to file cross-objections is on the record of these proc

Click Here to Read the rest of this document