D.R. Manickam Vs. The Collector of Tiruchirappalli
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14482/86)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14482/86)
Petitioner: D.R. Manickam
Respondent: The Collector of Tiruchirappalli
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. of 1987.
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14482/86)
(Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 14482/86)
Judges: E.S.VENKATARAMIAH & K.N. SINGH,JJ.
Date of Judgment: Dec 14, 1987
Head Note:
PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE
No cross appeals or cross objections filed by ~4~ Appellate court could not have issued any additional directions prejudicial to the appellant while dismissing his appeal – Decree passed by the High Court set aside and that of subordinate judge restored.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties . It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that no cross appeal or cross objections had been filed on behalf of the respondent. The appellate court therefore could not have issued any additional directions prejudicial to the appellant while dismissing his appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 25.9.86 against which this appeal is filed are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub-ordinate judge dated 20.1.1978 are restored. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
1. Special leave granted. We have heard learned counsel for the parties . It is admitted by the learned counsel for the respondent that no cross appeal or cross objections had been filed on behalf of the respondent. The appellate court therefore could not have issued any additional directions prejudicial to the appellant while dismissing his appeal. The judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 25.9.86 against which this appeal is filed are set aside and the judgment and decree passed by the learned sub-ordinate judge dated 20.1.1978 are restored. The appeal is accordingly disposed of.
Appeal allowed.
