SONIBAI Vs. BHAVARSINGH S/O GANGARAM RAJPUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE are two petitions submitted severally by the two respondents each of whom had filed cross-objection to the decree appealed against by the appellant. They contend that the appeal of the appellant had been dismissed for the appellant's default in paying paper-book charges; that prior to this order of dismissal either of the two respondents had submitted her cross-objection to the decree appealed against; that at the time when the order dismissing the appeal was passed no reference to these pending cross-objections was passed and that consequently they were still pending. The respondents seek a hearing in respect of these cross-objections.

(2.) ON behalf of the appellant two contentions are raised. Firstly it is said that the case is not covered by Order 41 Rule 22 (4), Code of Civil Procedure since the dismissal In this case cannot be said to be dismissal for default. Secondly, it is urged that it was incumbent upon the respondents to seek a hearing in respect of their cross-objections when the appeal was dismissed. They not only, did not then seek to press the appeal but also failed to press the same for over two years. They should clearly be held to have abandoned their cross-objections by reason of this conduct on their part. Reliance was sought to be placed by the appellant upon the decision reported in Qara Mohammad v. Bazam Ara, AIR 1923 Oudh 108.

(3.) IN our opinion the respondents' cross-objections cannot be taken to have been abandoned and ought to be heard.