JUDGMENT P.R. Sharma, J. 1. This is a plaintiff's second appeal against the judgment and decree dated the 11th of January, 1958 passed by the Addl. District Judge Vidisha in civil appeals Nos. 195 and 197 of 1956 2. The suit out of which the present appeal arises was filed on the basis of the following facts:-The defendant No. 1 Irphan Ali representing himself as the Provincial Organizer of defendant No. 2 the National Planners Ltd, Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) asked the plaintiff to purchase 250 shares of Rs. 10/- each on the assurance that the plaintiff would be appointed as a petrol agent of the Company. On the faith of this representation the plaintiff on 6-10-1951 paid a sum of Rs. 2,500/- as price of 250 shares together with Re. 1/- towards expenses and Re. 1/-as price for the Articles of Association. The defendant No. 1 passed a receipt for a sum of Rs. 2,502/- in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a piece of land on lease from the Sehore Municipality on monthly rent of Rs. 8/- and constructed thereon a petrol pump at the cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The plaintiff did not receive either the share certificates or the petrol agency as promised by defendant No. 1. On inquiry from the head-office he was told that the amount of Rs. 2,500/-had not been remitted to defendant No. 2. The plaintiff thereupon served the defendant No. 1 with a notice and filed the present suit for a sum of Rs. 4,100/-in all against the defendant No. 1 in his capacity as an agent or representative of defendant No. 2. 3. The defendant No. 1 in his written statement admitted that the plaintiff paid to him a sum of Rs. 2,502/- for purchase of 250 shares of the Company. He, however, contended that as the money was paid to him not in his personal capacity, but as an agent of defendant No. 2, he was not personally liable for the claim in suit. The defendant No. 2 Company did not appear at the hearing of the suit and the suit, therefore, proceeded ex-party against it. 3. The trial court held that defendant No. 1 had represented to the plaintiff that he would be appointed as a petrol agent for defendant No. 2 if he purchased 250 shares of the Company valued at Rs. 10/- each. 3. The trial court held that defendant No. 1 had represented to the plaintiff that he would be appointed as a petrol agent for defendant No. 2 if he purchased 250 shares of the Company valued at Rs. 10/- each. It further held that the defendant No. 1 failed to establish that the defendant No. 2 Company actually existed or that he received the money from plaintiff in his capacity as an agent of the Company. Since the defendant No. 1 did not plead in his written statement that he had remitted the sum of Rs, 2,500/- to defendant No. 2, the trial court discarded his evidence to this effect. The trial Court held it proved that the plaintiff took a piece of land on lease from the Sehore Municipality on a rent of Rs. 10/- p. m. for the purpose of constructing thereon a petrol pump. The plaintiff was, therefore, held entitled to claim the amount of Rs, 480/- paid by him as rent in respect of the land obtained by him from the Municipality. In the result the trial court decreed the plaintiff's suit against the defendant No. 1 only to the extent of Rs. 2,981 but dismissed it in its entirety as against defendant No. 2. 4. The defendant No. 1 filed Civil appeal No. 197 of 1956 against the decree passed against him by the trial court; whereas the plaintiff filed civil appeal No, 195 of 1956 in respect of the dismissal of his suit to the extent of Rs. 1,119. Both of these appeals were disposed of by the lower appellate court by the same judgment. 5. The lower appellate court held that the defendant No. 1 entered into the contract with the plaintiff in his capacity as a representative of defendant No. 2 and that he could not by virtue of the provisions of Sec. 230 of the Indian Contract Act be held personally liable for the plaintiff's claim. It further held that inasmuch as the plaintiff did not appeal against the dismissal of his suit as against defendant No. 2 nor had preferred any objection in the memo of appeal against the decision of the trial court on this point, no decree could be passed as against defendant No. 2. It, therefore, allowed the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 with costs and dismissed the plaintiff suit in its entirely. 6. It, therefore, allowed the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 with costs and dismissed the plaintiff suit in its entirely. 6. It was contended before me that the lower appellate court should have exercised its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 C. P. C. and passed a decree against defendant No. 2. It was argued by the learned counsel that though the plaintiff did not appeal against the dismissal of his suit against defendant No. 2, the latter was a party to the appeal filed by defendant No. 1 (civil appeal No. 197 of 1956). 7. It was held by the Privy Council in the case of Chockalingam Vs. Seethi Ache (32 Cal. W. 281) that a defendant against whom a suit has been dismissed and as against whom the right of appeal has become barred cannot be deemed to be interested in the result of the appeal filed by the plaintiff against the other defendants. The principle laid down in this case will however not apply to a case where the court dismisses the suit against one defendant but decree it against the other defendant who files an appeal impleading the plaintiff as well as the former defendant as respondents. In the case of Saktiprasanna Bhattacharya Vs. Nalini Ranjan Bhattacharya (58 Cal. 923) the defendant against whom the suit was decreed had appealed without making the defendant against whom the suit was dismissed a party. In the present case defendant No. 1 against whom a decree was passed by the trial court filed an appeal in which the plaintiff as well as defendant No. 2 were made respondents. The lower appellate court while allowing the appeal filed by defendant No. 1 on the ground that be had received Rs. 250/- in his capacity as an agent of defendant No. 2 and further induced the plaintiff to spend a sum of Rs. 480/- ought to have seen that defendant No. 2 would on the same ground be liable to make good the loss thus occasioned to the plaintiff by an act of its agent. The defendant No. 2 was in the circumstances, a party interested in the result of the appeal and the lower appellate court erred in not passing a decree against him for the amount of Rs. The defendant No. 2 was in the circumstances, a party interested in the result of the appeal and the lower appellate court erred in not passing a decree against him for the amount of Rs. 2981/- The failure on the 'part of the plaintiff to appeal against defendant No. 2 would not, in the circumstances stated above, have the effect of rendering the provisions of order XLI rule 33 inapplicable to the appeal preferred by defendant No. 1 in which the respondent No 2. had been joined as a respondent In short it may be stated that if the trial Court decrees the suit against defendant A but dismisses it as against defendant B and if A appeals making the plaintiff as well as B respondents, rule 33 of Order XLI C. P. C. will apply and the court is competent to pass a decree as against B (See Majar Vs. Nabin: 35 CWN 1079), Patiram Vs Sadasheo: A.I.R. 1931 Nag. 97: and Khusi Vs. Balak: A.I.R. 1931 Lah. 370, In such a case the failure on the part of the plaintiff to appeal against B would not debar the appellate court from decreeing the plaintiff's claim, wholly or in part, as against B in the appeal preferred by A. 8. Coming now to the merits of the case, the receipts Exs. P/1 for Rs. 2,501/- and P/2 for Re- 1/- were both passed by defendant No. 1 in his capacity as provincial organizer for Madhya Bharat of the National Planners Ltd, Company. Even in the reply Ex. P/9 submitted by the National Planners Ltd, Company to the plaintiff's letter dated 18-9-1952 the fact that the defendant No. 1 was the Provincial Organizer for Madhya Bharat of the Company was not denied. The entire correspondence between the parties relating to the transaction shows that the defendant No. 1 throughout represented himself to be the agent of defendant No. 2 Company, In these circumstances I am of the opinion that Sec. 230 of the Indian Contract Act was rightly held by the lower appellate court to be applicable to this case. The defendant No. 1 would, therefore, not be personally liable for the refund of the money received by him in his capacity as an agent of the defendant No. 2 Company. 9. The defendant No. 1 would, therefore, not be personally liable for the refund of the money received by him in his capacity as an agent of the defendant No. 2 Company. 9. I would, for the reasons stated above, partly allow this appeal and decree the plaintiffs suit to the extent of Rs. 2,981/- against the present respondent No. 2 with proportionate costs throughout. Counsel's fee Rs. 100/-. The appeal against respondent No. 1 Syed Irfan Ali is dismissed In view, however, of the dubious role played by him in this transaction I shall not award him any costs. Appeal dismissed