BUDHAN Vs. LALA HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BUDHAN ' and Ramji Lal executed an agreement to sell the pro perty in dispute in favour of Ved Prakash son of Harbans Lal on 13-9-55. On 1-3-62 Suit No. 65 of 1962 was filed by Ved Pra kash for specific performance of the contract of sale. It was stated by him that the afore said two persons had agreed to sell the plots in dispute for a sum of Rs. 200/- and that a sum of Rs. 50/- was advanced as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed after they had won the case that was pend ing in the Hon'ble High Court. The case was won of 27-11-61. It was also alleged that the aforesaid defendants had subse quently entered into some agreement with Sri Ram Kar Prasad and Narendra Kumar who were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. Ramji Lal who was defendant No. 1 ad mitted the plaint allegations. Budhan who was defendant No. 2 denied the execution of the agreement and stated that the sum of Rs. 50/- was borrowed from Harbans Lal and he never entered into any agreement to sell the property in dispute.

(2.) ANOTHER suit No. 89 of 1962 was filed by Harbans Lal on 27-3-62 for specific performance of the contract in his favour with the allegation that the contract was entered by him and the name of his son Ved Prakash was got entered under the ad vice of some legal experts.

(3.) , Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand has contended that the Cross Objection can be filed against the interest of the appellant as well as against the interest of the co-respondent According to him the language of Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. does not exclude the filing of the Cross Objection against a co-respondent I have heard the learned counsel for the par ties at some length. Order 41, Rule 22 au thorises a respondent to file an objection from any part of the decree hi respect of matters which he could have taken by way of appeal. The Cross Objections are in the nature of an appeal by the respondent If it is by way of an appeal by the respondent the Cross Objection principally should be directed against the appellant There has been divergence of opinion amongst the various High Courts on the right of filing a Cross Objection against a co-respondent The law now has been settled that as a gene ral rule the right of respondent to urge Cross Objections should be limited against the appellant and that it is only in excep tional cases that a respondent can be per mitted to urge a Cross Objection as against other respondents.