G.V. LAKSHMINARAYANAN Vs. M.E. DEVARAJAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants are before this court challenging the order of learned Appellate Court declining to extend the time to file cross appeal. The suit in O.S. No. 6703 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. Another suit O.S. No. 988 of 2005 was filed by the father of the respondents seeking mandatory injunction, for damages and permanent injunction. The suit filed by the petitioners herein was decreed and the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed. Therefore, the respondents filed appeal suits in A.S. Nos. 136 and 137 of 2007. The petitioners took out an application seeking extension of time to file cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 and the said application was dismissed. The said order is challenged before this court.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the cross appeal filed by the petitioners have to be taken on file as the appeal has not been disposed of and as the points raised therein are required to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. Consequently he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mahadev Govind Charge & others vs. The Special and Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, 2011 4 LW 819and particularly relying upon paragraphs 21, 22 and 57 of the judgment contended that Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC provides the court below to extend the time for filing cross objection/cross appeal. Therefore, the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the revision has to be allowed.

(3.) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners raised only the legal points namely jurisdiction and court fees and the same are to be raised at the earliest point of time, whereas, the petitioners took their own sweet time and tried to file the petition to receive cross appeal only when the matter was posted for argument. He would further submit that even before the trial court, the same application was filed and was dismissed. Thereafter on revision, this court also confirmed the dismissal order. Therefore, the question of going into the said facts further again does not raise.