PARSU ANTU BARDESHKAR Vs. TAMAS SHAHU BARDESHKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APART from certain questions of fact which Mr. K. J. Abhyankar, the learned advocate for defendants Nos. 2 and 3, has unsuccessfully sought to raise in this second appeal, he has also, in addition thereto, raised for my determination a rather interesting question of law relating to the correct interpretation of the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure prior to its amendment by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976.

(2.) [His Lordship, after stating the facts of the case and dealing with points not material to this report, proceeded.]

(3.) NOW , under the provisions of Order XLI, Rule 22 as the same stood at the relevant time, any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, but may also take any cross -objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal. On the plain wording of the said provision, therefore, the impugned cross -objections in the present case do appear to be ex facie maintainable because, in this case, the decree passed by the trial Court was partly against the plaintiff and it was therefore, open to the plaintiff to have filed an appeal therefrom and raised objections to that part of the decree which was against him. If that is so, then on the plain reading of Order XLI, Rule 22, the plaintiff could have raised the same objections to the impugned decree also by filing cross -objections against the same. But Mr. Abhyankar is right in his contention that, generally speaking, cross -objections are not maintainable against a co -respondent and the said contention of Mr. Abhyankar is indeed warranted by a number of decisions. Mr. Divekar also does not quarrel with the said general proposition, viz. that generally speaking cross -objections are not maintainable against a co -respondent,