SATYA DEVI Vs. H.R.T.C.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for consideration in these cases is whether the cross -objections, which have been filed by the claimants -respondents in the First Appeals from Order, are within the prescribed period of limitation as provided under Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The objection which has been raised by the Registry is that the cross -objections are beyond the prescribed period of one month from the date of service on the respondents of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. Shri Deepak Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the Himachal Road Transport Corporation, which is the principal appellant in these F.A. Os. supports this objection.

(2.) Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of Civil Procedure, in so far as it is material, is in the following terms : - "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 n ay 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 he 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.) What has been contended by Shri Rajiv Sharma, who appears for the claimants -objectors, is that though the notice which was served upon the claimants -objectors mentions that the appeal will be heard on a particular date or on such other date to which it may be subsequently postponed, the date had not been fixed by the "Court" itself but it had been fixed by the Registry of the Court. Consequently, it could not be treated to be a date fixed for hearing of the appeal within the meaning of Rule 22.