RAMSWARUP Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONLY one identical question is involved in both these appeals and, therefore, they can conveniently be disposed of a single judgment. The plaintiff Ramswarup filed two suits for recovery of money alleged to be due to him from the State of rajasthan on the basis of certain work contract granted to him. Both these suits were decreed in part. Consequently, both the parties filed appeals in the Court of the District Judge, Aimer. It is not disputed that the appeals filed by the plaintiff were barred by limitation, and consequently the plaintiff filed applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act for excusing the delay. The applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act were dismissed on 13-8-70. Notices in the appeals filed by the State of Rajasthan were issued on 31-7-1968 and were served on the plaintiff on 18-8-1968. On 28-8-1968 the plaintiff filed applications under Section 151 of the Civil P. C. praying that the appeals may be treated as cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P. C. From the order-sheets of the lower appellate court it appears that the Court was not asked to decide these applications and the cases were adjourned from time to time for arguments on the applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act. However, on 12-8-1970 the plaintiff made fresh applications under Section 151. Civil P. C. , again praying that the appeals may be treated as cross-objections. These applications were dismissed by the learned district Judge by his order dated 6-11-1970. By the same order the appeals were also dismissed as time barred. In these circumstances the plaintiff has filed these appeals.

(2.) AS already stated above, the only question for decision in these appeals is whether the learned District Judge was in error in refusing to treat the appeals filed by the plaintiff as cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22. Civil P. C. ? learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the following authorities in support of his contention that they can be so treated,--Bawa Singh v. Thakur Singh, AIR 1922 Lah 423; Bhagat Raj v. Raghbar dial, AIR 1925 Lah 57; Mihan Singh v Tilak Ram. AIR 1934 Lah 273; labhu Ram v. Ram Pratap, AIR 1944 Lah 76; Smt. Nripjit Kaur v. Satinder Singh, AIR 1955 Punj 190.

(3.) ON the other hand the learned Additional Government Advocate has urged that the appeals filed by the plaintiff in the Court below were clearly barred by time and the applications under Section 5 of the Limitation Act having been dismissed, there was no alternative left to the Court but to dismiss the same under Section 3 of the Limitation Act. He has further submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the present case the appeals filed by the plaintiffs could not have been treated as crossobjections. In support of Ms contention he has relied upon.-Mohd. Sarwar Khan v. Ghafoor Beg, AIR 1944 Pesh 7; Ram Krishna Bera v. Bejoy Kumar Addya. (19361 164 Ind Cas 935 (Cal); Ram Kripal v. Radhey Shyam, AIR 1970 Raj 234.