Mr. J. K. Mehra, J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 41 Rule 33read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure wherein the appellantshave prayed as under : "that it is essential in the interest of justice and in order toarrive at the fair amount of compensation payable to the claimants,that the aforesaid submissions which are based on facts on therecord and which are based on the law laid down by the variouscourts, may be taken into consideration by this Hon ble Court andthe appeal may be heard on all the points raised by the appellantsin their Grounds of Appeal and the appellants may be awarded theamount of Rs. 1. 50,000. 00 as compensation carrying interest @ 15%per annum w. e. f. the date of filing of the petition till payment. Any other relief which this Court deems fit and proper underthe circumstances of the case may also be granted to theappellants. " ( 2 ) IN this case, the age of the deceased at the time of his death inthe accident in question was held to be 42 years and the Court had appliedthe multiplier of 16 in computing the compensation i. e. upto normal age ofretirement in government service, in addition, the Motor Accidents Claimstribunal also awarded interest on the said amount of compensation at therate of 12% p. a. The appellants challenged the award of the M. A. C. T. mainly on two counts, one that multiplier of 28 should have been appliedinstead of 16 taking the expected earning age of the deceased as 70 years andthe other was against the award of 12% interest instead of 15% as was beingclaimed. All these ground were considered at the time of admission andwhile admitting the Court confined the challenge to the award only to thequestion of interest. The admission order reads-"admit only on the question of interest". In other words, all other pleas contained the Memorandumof Appeal are deemed to have been considered and rejected at the very outset, while admitting the appeal for hearing. This is not a case where reviewof the order of admission is sought. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has laid lot of stress on the provisionsof Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code which read as under : 0. 41 R. 33. This is not a case where reviewof the order of admission is sought. ( 3 ) COUNSEL for the appellant has laid lot of stress on the provisionsof Order 41 Rule 33 of Civil Procedure Code which read as under : 0. 41 R. 33. Power of Court of Appeal- The Appellate Courtshall have power to pass any decree and make any order whichought to have been passed or made and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require, and thispower may be exercised by the Court notwithstanding that theappeal is as to part only of the decree and may be exercised infavour of all or any of the respondents or parties, although suchrespondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objectionand may, where there have been decrees in cross-suits or where twoor more decrees are passed in one suit, be exercised in respect of allor any of the decrees, although an appeal may not have been filedagainst such decrees:provided that the Appellate Court shall not make any orderunder Section 35-A, in pursuance of any objection on which thecourt from whose decree the appeal is preferred has omitted orrefused to make such order. " ( 4 ) A number of authorities in support of the contention that theappellate Court has the powers to grant relief even though not prayed forand even if by the party deserving the relief has not filed a separate appeal incase the compensation awarded is grossly inadequate. ( 5 ) IN my view, no hard and fast rule can be laid down as to thecircumstances in which this power can be exercised and each case mustdepend on its own facts. Normally the appellate Court would not interferewith the decree in exercise of power under Order 41 Rule 33. Although ruleis expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretionand to cases where such exercise in favour of a party necessitates interferencealso with a decree which has by acceptance of acquiescence become final soas to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. Although ruleis expressed in terms which are wide, but it has to be applied with discretionand to cases where such exercise in favour of a party necessitates interferencealso with a decree which has by acceptance of acquiescence become final soas to enable the Court to adjust the rights of the parties. The rule does notconfer an unrestricted right to re-open the decrees which have become finalmerely because the appellate Court does not agree with the opinion of thecourt appealed from and that the findings of fact on appreciation of theevidence could not be lightly brushed aside by the appellate Court. ( 6 ) I may further add that the appellate Court could enhance orreduce the compensation amount, granted by trial Court, in case of anaccident, which took place due to negligence of opposite party by exercisingpowers under the provision of Order 41 Rule 33 and there will be no bar tofollow the principle laid down in the said provision even in cases of appealsunder Section 110-D of the Motor Vehicles Act. In order to shorten thelitigation and best attain the ends of justice in certain exceptional cases it isnot only competent to a Court of appeal but it may be its duty to take noticeof events which have happened subsequently to the passing of the decree ororder appealed against and adjust the rights of parties which is not the casehere. ( 7 ) THE case covered by the application under consideration is not acase of nature envisaged by Order 41 Rule 33 Civil Procedure Code because the challenge toaward by the application of multiplyer of 16 instead of ^8 was specificallyincluded in the Memorandum of Appeal and this Court, while admitting theappeal did not agree to entertain any challenge on that count and admittedthe appeal only on the question of interest thereby implying that all othergrounds of challenge have been considered and rejected. The said provisiondoes not envisage review by the appellate Court of its own orders. Theapplication in question is not one for review of the order for admission. ( 8 ) IT is in the light of these peculiar facts that I am of the consideredview that the pleas which are raised and not entertained at the time ofadmission are no longer open to the appellants to be re-agitated and thefindings in respect thereof cannot be interfered with by appellate Court underorder 41 Rule 33 CPC. ( 8 ) IT is in the light of these peculiar facts that I am of the consideredview that the pleas which are raised and not entertained at the time ofadmission are no longer open to the appellants to be re-agitated and thefindings in respect thereof cannot be interfered with by appellate Court underorder 41 Rule 33 CPC. In this view of the matter, the application is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.