Choodanatha Setty Vs. Gopalachetty

.....tax, no other deductions should be allowed from gross salary. when the deceased had 12 more years of service, it is reasonable to expect that his salary would not have been same till date of superannuation. keeping in mind hike in salary during rest of period of service, and no additional weightage is given on this count while computing the gross income, no deduction towards income-tax or professional tax is warranted. section 173 (1): [v.g. gopala gowda & k.n. keshavanarayana, jj] insurers appeal- power of the appellate court - exercise of discretionary power - expression which ought to have been passed occurring in order 41 rule 33- held, the appellate court while exercising its discretionary power under order 41 rule 33 can pass any order to render complete justice between the parties. on facts held, the motor vehicle claims tribunal should have granted relief to the petitioner which ought in laws to have been passed. the tribunal has committed grave error while computing the loss of dependency by applying improper method and the same is apparently noticed. in order to do complete justice to the parties, high court can exercise its discretionary power under order 41 rule 33 cpc - hence, compensation is enhanced to meet the ends of justice even though it is an appeal filed by the insurer - 3. it should be clearly borne in mind that the two revision petitioners were not parties to the suit.ordervishwanath, j.1. heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioners. the revision petitioners are applicants who filed application under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c. their application was rejected by the trial court by its order dated 20.2.1995.2. in o.s.no. 1881/80 a preliminary decree was passed and final decree proceedings were pending. it was at that stage the applicant filed the application under order 1 rule 10 c.p.c. to get themselves impleaded as j.drs. in the execution petition.3. it should be clearly borne in mind that the two revision petitioners were not parties to the suit.4. at the outset it should be mentioned that order 1 rule 10 c.p.c. does not apply to execution proceedings. if the revision petitioners-applicants have purchased the property involved in the sale proceedings, other remedies are open to them. but they cannot come on record as j.drs. when they are not parties to the original suit. hence the revision petition is rejected.