Rule 33 of CPC : Rule 33: Power of Court of appeal.
CPC
JavaScript did not load properly
Some content might be missing or broken. Please try disabling content blockers or use a different browser like Chrome, Safari or Firefox.
Explanation using Example
Example 1:
Ravi files a lawsuit against Suresh and Mahesh, claiming that they both owe him Rs. 1,00,000. The trial court rules in favor of Ravi but only against Suresh, ordering Suresh to pay the full amount. Suresh appeals the decision, and both Ravi and Mahesh are respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court reviews the case and finds that Suresh is not liable for the debt, but Mahesh is. The Appellate Court then has the power to pass a decree against Mahesh, even though Mahesh did not file an appeal or objection.
Example 2:
Priya sues her business partners, Anil and Sunil, for breach of contract, seeking damages of Rs. 5,00,000. The trial court issues a decree in favor of Priya but only against Anil. Anil appeals the decision, and Priya and Sunil are respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court finds that Anil is not responsible for the breach but that Sunil is. The Appellate Court can then issue a decree against Sunil, requiring him to pay the damages, even though Sunil did not appeal the original decision.
Example 3:
Meera files a lawsuit against her neighbors, Raj and Simran, for encroaching on her property. The trial court rules in favor of Meera but only against Raj, ordering Raj to remove the encroachment. Raj appeals the decision, and both Meera and Simran are respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court finds that Simran, not Raj, is responsible for the encroachment. The Appellate Court can then pass an order against Simran to remove the encroachment, even though Simran did not file an appeal.
Example 4:
A company, ABC Ltd., sues two suppliers, XYZ Ltd. and PQR Ltd., for delivering defective goods, seeking compensation of Rs. 10,00,000. The trial court rules in favor of ABC Ltd. but only against XYZ Ltd. XYZ Ltd. appeals the decision, and both ABC Ltd. and PQR Ltd. are respondents in the appeal. The Appellate Court finds that PQR Ltd. is actually responsible for the defective goods. The Appellate Court can then pass a decree against PQR Ltd., requiring them to pay the compensation, even though PQR Ltd. did not appeal the original decision.