Short Note : 1. The plaintiff, who was watching the crops, was attacked by the defendants with their weapons as a result of which the plaintiff received multiple injuries on his person and fell down unconscious. Immediately thereafter he was taken to the Police Station where he lodged a report and he was also sent to the hospital for medical treatment. The plaintiff suffered many grievous and simple injuries and bodily pain, was confined in the hospital for 27 days and he was unable to perform his normal duties. The plaintiff, therefore, claimed Rs. 4,115/- as general damages for mental and physical pain and humiliation and Rs. 385/- as special damages towards medicines diet and loss of wages. The defendants pleaded that they did not form any unlawful assembly nor they beat the plaintiff. The plaintiff himself had beaten the servant of the defendant No. 1 and when the defendant No. 1 went to the plaintiff to protest, the plaintiff also beat Sakharam who had accompanied the defendant No 1. As a result of the beating, Sakharam received injuries and the Police has filed a challan against the plaintiff and Sakharam also filed a civil suit against the plaintiff for damages. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the defendants formed an unlawful assembly and they caused grievous hurt and other injuries with dead weapons whereby the plaintiff suffered mental and physical pain and humiliation. The plaintiff's claim for general damages to the extent of 4,000/- was decreed but his claim for special damages was found not proved. In appeal, preferred by all the defendants, the learned Additional District Judge confirmed the findings of the trial Court and dismissed the appeal. Held : The first question is whether the appeal has abated in this case the defendants have been jointly and several liable to pay the damages of Rs 4,000/- to the plaintiff but the second appeal has been preferred by some of the defendants and the remaining defendants were made respondents. This is a case in which Order 41, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. This is a case in which Order 41, rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable. Under this provision where there are more plaintiffs or more defendants than one in a suit, and the decree appealed from proceeds on any ground common to all plaintiffs or to all the defendants, any of the plaintiffs or the defendants may appeal from the whole decree, and thereupon the appellate Court may reverse or vary the decree in favour of all the plaintiffs or the defendants, as the case may, be. As such, in an appeal from a decree which proceeds on a ground common to all the defendants and which is preferred by some of the defendants, the entire decree can be varied including the decree against the defendants who have not preferred the appeal. Therefore, it was not necessary for the present appellant-defendants to join the remaining defendants as respondents in the appeal and yet the appellate Court in appeal could vary the entire decree applicable to all the defendants. There is a direct decision of the Supreme Court on this question reported in Mahabir Prasad v. Jage Ram ( AIR 1971 SC 742 ). 2. Now remains the question regarding award of general damages amounting to Rs. 4,000/- against the defendants for causing grievous and other injuries to the plaintiff resulting ion mental and bodily pain and humiliation. The normal rule is that no appeal lies on the quantum of damages unless it involves a matter of principle. An appeal upon the quantum of damages will not be allowed unless either (i) the lower Court has applied a wrong principle of law in assessing the damages or (ii) the amount awarded is so inordinately low or so inordinately high that it requires interference. It is now well settled that general damages can be awarded in respect of pain, suffering and shock suffered by the plaintiff by the assault, loss of amenities of life such as the plaintiff suffers by reduced enjoyment of life due to the damage caused by the assault and inconvenience and discomfort suffered by the plaintiff. Exemplary damages are granted where the conduct of the defendant has been so outrageous or scandalous that more punitive damages can be awarded against them. Exemplary damages are granted where the conduct of the defendant has been so outrageous or scandalous that more punitive damages can be awarded against them. It has been found by the Courts below that all the defendants formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of causing grievous hurt to the plaintiff and with that object they trespassed into the field and assaulted the plaintiff with lathis, tabbals and tangiya carried by them. Appeal dismissed.