K CHANDRASHEKARA NAIK Vs. NARAYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Division Bench of this Court which heard the appeal, has referred to the Full Bench the following question: In an appeal under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, are crossobjections by a respondent maintainable ?

(2.) In Harthi Adirajaiah v. Savandamma, (1973) 1 Mys.L.J 247. and A. Rahman v. Wabber, (1973) 1 Mys.L.J 371. two Division Benches of this Court have taken the view that in an appeal under S.110D of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'), cross-oblections cannot be filed invoking the,"provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 CPC. In view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Collector, Varanasi v. Gaouri Shankar Misra, AIR 1968 SC 384. the Divn Bench which has referred the above question to a Full Bench, was of the opinion that the above rulings of this Court require reconsideration.

(3.) Mr. B. P. Holla, learned Advocate for the first respondent, contended that in view of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court in National Sewing Thread Co. Ltd. v. James Chadwick & Bros. LTd, AIR 1953 SC 357. and Collector, Varanasi v. Gaouri Shankar Mishra(3) the view taken by the Divn Benches of this Court in the, aforesaid two decisions is not correct. He urged that in the absence of any special procedure prescribed in the Act or the rules thereunder, the appeal must be regulated by the general practice and procedure of this Court in appeals. He therefore urged that by necessary implication the provisions of the CPC relating to, appeals to the High Court are to be followed and that cross-objections filed in appeals under S.110D of the Act are maintainable.