NRIPJIT KAUR Vs. SARDAR SATINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The matter to be decided in these two petitions (Civil Misc. Nos. 17-D and 22-D of 1954) is (1) whether the application for leave to appeal in 'forma pauperis' is within time and (2) whether the memorandum of appeal can he treated as cross- objections under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P. C.

(2.) The suit was decided by a decree dated .10-8-1953 and the appeal was tiled in this Court on 22-1-1954 by Nirpat Kaur in person. The application for leave to appeal in 'forma pauperis' should have been filed within thirty days, but it was filed long after that period hud elapsed, but Mr. Gurbachan Singh Bakhshi submits that his memorandum of appeal should be treated as cross-objection and he relied on a Full Bench judgment of the Lahore High Court in -- 'Labhu Ram and others v. Ram Partap', AIR 1944 Lah 76 (A), where it was held that although cross- objections cannot be presented after the expiry of thirty days from the date of service of the notice on the respondent, the right to submit cross-objections accrues as soon as an order is made issuing notice of the date of hearing of the appeal to him and it is not necessary for him to wait until the service is actually effected on him. The respondent in such a case can appear on the date of hearing and present his objections though he is not served. At page 87 Din Mohammad J. said;

(3.) It is contended on behalf of the respondent. (the appellant in Regular First Appeal No. 11-D of 1954) that the case does not fall under Order 44, Rule 1 Civil P. C, After perusing the judgment & decree we are of the opinion that this objection is not sustain- able, and I would therefore allow the memorandum of appeal to be treated as cross-objections and as the cross-objector has been found to be a pauper, leave is given to file cross-objections in 'forma pauperis'. There will be no order as to costs in these proceedings. Bishan Narain, J.