Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 41 Rule 22—Remedies available to a respondent in the court of first appeal where an original decree has been challenged—Elaborated.
Held : In cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance is in favor of the respondent in whole, in such circumstance, no remedy exists in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal can be vested onto a party, which is successful.
However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, is partly in favour of the respondent, but is also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 remain with the respondent, which are (i) To file their cross objections and, (ii) To support the decree in whole. A third remedy in law also exists, which is the right to file a cross appeal, which will also be discussed in brief.
In cases where the opposing party files a first appeal against part or whole of the original decree, and the respondent in the said first appeal, due to part or whole of the decree being in their favour, abstains from filing an appeal at the first instance, in such cases, to ensure that the respondent is also given a fair chance to be heard, he is given the right to file his cross objections within the appeal already so instituted by the other party, against not only the contentions raised by the other party, but also against part or whole of the decree passed by the court of first instance.
In a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party. The respondent also has the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full.
[Paras 13 to 16]
Order 41 Rule 22—Cross-objections—Non-consideration by the High Court—Appeal—Challenge in appeal is only confined to the extent of quantum of compensation granted for land acquisition—Cross objections filed by landowners for further enhancement—While cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, are filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC, cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same—High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by appellants—Since such an obligation was not discharged while passing the judgment in appeal, the matter is fit for remand to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections during appeal by appellants—Appeals allowed to such an extent.
[Paras 17, 18 & 22]