Appellant court can not reverse or modify the lower court decree and judgement in the absence of appeal /cross appeal /cross objections on that count - In the absence of any such appeal, the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the decree of the trial Court with regard to the award of damages. Therefore, the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court that the appellant is not entitled to damages as he has not supplied the remaining ballast to the respondents and reversal of the judgment and decree regarding damages cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the judgment to this extent is set aside. In the result, the decree of the trial Court awarding damages of Rs.1.00 lakh is restored. The sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with 6% interest, in respect of which a further decree has been passed by the lower appellate Court, shall be paid by the respondents in addition to the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh payable by them towards the damages awarded by the trial Court. The judgment of the lower appellate Court accordingly stands modified to the above extent.

THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY

Second Appeal No. 92 of 2013

Date: 21-02-2013

Between:

C.H. Nagi Reddy                                                

... Appellant

And

Union of India, Owning South Central

Railway, rep.by its General Manager,

Rail Nilayam, Secunderabad & another.         

... Respondents

Counsel for the appellant:  Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad

Counsel for the respondents:  Sri P.Bhaskar

The Court made the following:

JUDGMENT:

This Second Appeal arises out of judgment and decree, dated 17.07.2009, in A.S.No.84 of 2007, on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-cum-VI Additional District Judge (FTC), Gooty. 

The appellant filed O.S.No.5 of 2001 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Gooty 

for declaration that the termination of the contract through letter, dated 27.01.2000, by the respondents is illegal; 

for mandatory injunction directing the respondents not to penalize him; to restore the benefits of the contract; 

for award of damages of Rs.3.00 lakhs and 

for return of the sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with interest towards the work done by him.

After a full-fledged trial, 

the trial Court partly decreed the suit to the extent of payment of damages of Rs.1.00 lakh and dismissed the suit for the remaining reliefs.  

Feeling partly aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the appellant filed A.S.No.84 of 2007 in the lower appellate Court.  

By its judgment, dated 17.07.2009, 

the lower appellate Court has partly allowed the appeal holding that the appellant is entitled to recovery of Rs.1,92,473/- together with interest at 6% per annum from the date of filing of the suit till realization towards the work done by the appellant.  

However, while doing so, the lower appellate Court had held that the appellant is not entitled to award of damages and directed that the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh already awarded by the trial Court towards damages shall be adjusted towards the sum of Rs.1,92,473/- and that the appellant is entitled to recover the balance amount of Rs.92,473/- with interest at 6% per annum.

At the hearing, Sri Katta Laxmi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the lower appellate Court has committed a serious jurisdictional error in reversing the judgment of the trial Court with respect to award of damages as no appeal was filed by the respondents against that part of the decree of the trial Court. 

Sri P.Bhaskar, learned Standing Counsel for Railways appearing for the respondents, is unable to show that the respondents have filed any appeal either substantive or by way of cross-objections against the judgment and decree of the trial Court awarding damages to the appellant. 

In the absence of any such appeal, the lower appellate Court has no jurisdiction to reverse the decree of the trial Court with regard to the award of damages.  Therefore, the findings rendered by the lower appellate Court that the appellant is not entitled to damages as he has not supplied the remaining ballast to the respondents and reversal of the judgment and decree regarding damages cannot be sustained in law.  Accordingly, the judgment to this extent is set aside.

In the result, the decree of the trial Court awarding damages of Rs.1.00 lakh is restored.  

The sum of Rs.1,92,473/- along with 6% interest, in respect of which a further decree has been passed by the lower appellate Court, shall be paid by the respondents in addition to the sum of Rs.1.00 lakh payable by them towards the damages awarded by the trial Court. 

 The judgment of the lower appellate Court accordingly stands modified to the above extent.  

The Second Appeal is allowed accordingly.

 

                                                   C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J

21^st February, 2013.

Mgr/VGB