IMPORTANT POINT
If a respondent in an appeal does not choose to avail benefit of Rule 22 of Order 41, it is not obligatory for court to examine correctness of finding rendered against him in impugned judgment.

ORDER

P.B. Suresh Kumar, J.—The first respondent in the writ appeal, who was the petitioner in the writ petition, seeks review of the judgment. Parties are referred to in this order for convenience, as they appear in the writ petition.

2. The petitioner is a member of the second respondent, a Co-operative Society registered under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969 (the Act). He was also the President of the Society for some time. The petitioner and others were surcharged by the first respondent, the Joint Registrar of Co-operative societies, under Section 68(2) of the Act in terms of Ext.P1 order on the ground that they have caused loss to the Society to the tune of Rs.3,15,269/- by taking out a building on lease unnecessarily, and without the permission of the competent authority under the Act. Earlier, based on an inquiry report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A, an inquiry was ordered by the Joint Registrear under Section 68(1) through the second respondent, the concerned Assistant Registrar of Co-operative Societies, and it is based on the report in the said inquiry that Ext.P1 order was passed.

3. The petitioner challenged Ext.P1 order mainly on the ground that there cannot be an inquiry under Section 68(1) based on the report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A. It was also contended, in the alternative, that the report of the Vigilance Officer under Section 68A was drawn up by an Officer in the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police, whereas the provisions of Section 68A of the Act clearly mandate that the enquiry officer could not be below the rank of the Deputy Inspector General of Police. The learned Single Judge accepted the main ground that there cannot be an inquiry under Section 68(1) based on the report of the Vigilance Officer appointed under Section 68A, and quashed Ext.P1 order. The writ appeal was filed by respondents 1 and 2 aggrieved by the said decision of the learned Single Judge. Insofar as the learned Single Judge did not consider the alternative contention urged by the petitioner to impugn Ext.P1 order, respondents 1 and 2 canvassed only the correctness of the finding rendered by the learned Single Judge on the main ground urged. This court accepted the arguments of respondents 1 and 2, set aside the impugned judgment and dismissed the writ petition.

4. Though the petitioner preferred S.L.P. No.4308 of 2022 aggrieved by the decision in the writ appeal, the same was withdrawn later with liberty to prefer a petition seeking review of the judgment and this review petition is accordingly instituted.

5. Heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner/review petitioner.

6. The learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner vehemently and persuasively argued that this Court ought to have considered the alternative contention raised by the petitioner in the writ petition viz, that the report under Section 68A was drawn up by an incompetent officer also, before upsetting the judgment of the learned Single Judge. According to the learned Senior Counsel, it is an error apparent on the face of the record, and the judgment in the writ appeal is liable to be reviewed on that score.

7. We have considered the argument advanced by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.

8. Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the principles of which are applicable to an appeal under Section 5 of the High Court Act, 1958 provides that any respondent in an appeal, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the judgment impugned in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. In the case on hand, no finding was rendered by the learned Single Judge on the alternative plea urged by the petitioner. Even assuming that the said provision would apply to a case of the instant nature, the learned Senior Counsel who appeared for the petitioner did not urge at the time of