KAMAL KUMAR Vs. IMARTI BAI & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed by the defendant/tenant, against whom a decree for ejectment is passed by two Courts below. This appeal is admitted by this Court by order dated 17.1.2001 on following substantial questions of law:

(2.) SHRI R. A. Roman, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that in absence of cross -objection on behalf of the respondents it was not open for the Court to pass a decree on the ground of Section 12(1) (e). The appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the ground under Section 12 (1) (a) is not available and has dismissed the suit on that ground. His submission, therefore, was that in absence of cross -objection the Court should not have passed the decree in favour of the plaintiffs. He submitted that the 1st appellate Court has erroneously invoked the provisions of Order XLIR.33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in granting the decree in favour of the plaintiffs without there being any cross -objection. After considering the arguments, I find that the arguments advanced by the learned counsel are devoid of any merit. The language of Order XLIR.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is quite clear on this point Order XLIR.22 reads as under: Order XLIR.22 : 22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree (but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross -objection) to the decree which in could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.

(3.) (Explanation : A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross -objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.).