Appellate Court Can Grant Relief to Non-Appealing Respondent to Subserve Justice Under Order XLI Rule 33 CPC

The petitioner (husband) filed a review petition against a judgment dated 30.10.2025 passed in First Appeal No. 133/2023. In the original appeal, the High Court granted a divorce and allowed the respondent-wife’s interlocutory application (I.A. No. 7016/2025) for rights over a plot in Jabalpur

The petitioner challenged this on the grounds that the Family Court had previously ruled against the wife on this property (Issue No. 5) and she had not filed a cross-objection or independent appeal

Furthermore, the petitioner alleged the wife suppressed the fact that her prior civil suit regarding the same property had been dismissed

1. Whether the High Court could grant relief to the respondent-wife regarding joint property in a matrimonial appeal in the absence of a cross-objection or independent appeal

2. Whether the wife’s claim was barred by the principles of res judicata due to the dismissal of her earlier civil suit

3. Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding a property issue rather than remanding it to the Family Court

Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which empowers a court in matrimonial proceedings to make just provisions regarding property presented at the time of marriage belonging jointly to the spouses

Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which grants appellate courts the power to pass any decree or order to do complete justice, even in favor of a respondent who has not filed an appeal or objection

Order XLI Rule 24 of the CPC, allowing an appellate court to finally determine a suit if the evidence on record is sufficient, even if the trial court omitted to decide a specific issue

dismissal under Order IX Rule 2 CPC (for failure to pay process fees) is not an adjudication on merits

Rules governing Review Jurisdiction (Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC) were applied to emphasize that review is not an "appeal in disguise"

The court reasoned that since the property was joint and presented during the marriage, Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act allowed the court to adjudicate the dispute to avoid multiple proceedings

Under Order XLI Rule 33, the Court held it had the discretion to grant relief to the wife despite her lack of a formal cross-appeal

The Court rejected the res judicata argument because the previous civil suit was dismissed for procedural default (non-payment of fees) rather than on merits, meaning no rights were ever determined

On the issue of remand, the court found that since sufficient evidence was already on record regarding the property's purchase (funded by the wife’s parents), it was duty-bound under Order XLI Rule 24 to decide the matter finally rather than delaying justice through a remand

Finally, the court noted that the petitioner failed to raise these objections during the original appeal hearing and could not use a review petition to introduce new arguments or seek a re-hearing of facts

It further held that a dismissal of a suit for a technical default (Order IX Rule 2) does not operate as res judicata

The High Court dismissed the review petition. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any "error apparent on the face of the record," and the petition was merely an attempt to re-argue the merits of the appeal