Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(emphasis supplied)

16. As the provision originally stood, a respondent in an appeal was entitled to not only support the decree on any other ground decided against it but also conferred a right to prefer a cross-objection to the decree in the same manner as they would have by way of an appeal. Post the 1976 amendments, the provision as it stands now explicitly enables the respondent to also assail the correctness of a finding contained in the judgment under appeal rendered upon an issue and assert that the same ought to have been decided in its favour. The aforesaid right which the statute now confers is in addition to it being open to the respondent to not only support the decree but to also prefer a cross-objection to the decree itself. The three recourses which are open for the respondent to adopt were elaborately explained by the Supreme Court in B. Subba Reddy, Banarsi v. Ram Phal8 and International Security & Intelligence Agency.

11. In the type of case (i) it was necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take cross-objection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though that part of the decree which is in his favour he is entitled to support without taking any cross-objection. The law remains so post- amendment too. In the type of cases (ii) and (iii) pre-amendment CPC did not entitle nor permit the respondent to take any cross- objection as he was not the person aggrieved by the decree. Under the amended CPC, read in the light of the explanation, though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection laying challenge to any finding adverse to him as the decree is entirely in his favour and he may support the decree without cross- objection; the amendment made in the text of sub-rule (1), read with the explanation newly inserted, gives him a right to take cross- objection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing with an issue. The advantage of preferring such cross-objection is spelled out by sub-rule (4). In spite of the original appeal having been withdrawn or dismissed for default the cross-objection taken to any finding by the respondent shall still be available to be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent under the unamended CPC. In the pre- amendment era, the withdrawal or dismissal for default of the original appeal disabled the respondent to question the correctness or otherwise of any finding recorded against the respondent."

15. The purpose of Order 41, Rule 22 was discussed in detail by the Rangoon High Court in Ma Lon v. Ma Mya May, AIR 1939 Rangoon 59. After referring to the provisions contained in Rule 22 of Order 41 it was held that where respondent takes any cross objection to the decree such cross objection would be governed by the rules of porcedure governing an appeal because under Order 41, Rule 22(1) a cross objection must be such as the respondent could have taken by way of appeal.

59. It was in that context that the High Court held as follows:

"Shri A.P. Sen, who appeared for the appellant raised an objection that the cross-objection is not tenable because it is a cross-objection filed against art appellate order. The grant or refusal of a temporary injunction is expressly appealable under the Code of Civil Procedure. Under section 104 an appeal lies against an order granting or refusing a temporary injunction. Section 108 makes Chapter VII apply to all appeals, irrespective of whether they arise from decrees or orders. Order XLIII rule 2, clearly lays down that 1957 SCC OnLine MP 148 the rules of Order XLI shall apply, so far as they can be made applicable to appellate orders and that the intention is to allow all matters covered by Order XLI so far as they can be made applicable to appellate orders and appeals therefrom as well. It is quite clear therefore that a cross-objection in an appeal against an appellate order can be made. Shri A.P. Sen contends that in a cross-objection the cross-objector cart only support the order made in the lower Court but cannot ask for any further relief. This is an erroneous assumption because in cross-objection a decree can be passed. The cross-objection takes the place of an appeal after it is filed and a decree from an order can be made, just as in an appeal. This is clear from a reading of Order XLI, rule 22, itself. I, therefore, overrule the contention that the cross-objection in this case is not tenable."