MANI RAM Vs. HARBANS LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. M. C. Bhandari and Mr. B. L. Khatri.

(2.) THIS was a suit for specific performance filed by the respondent against the appellant on 10th February, 1981 which has been decreed by both the courts below.

(3.) THE learned counsel for the appellant urged that the trial court had found that actually an amount of Rs. 2500/- was only advanced by the plaintiff to the defendant and not Rs. 3850/ -. According to the trial court, an amount of Rs. 1350/- was added as interest and thus the amount of advance was made as Rs. 3850/ -. It was argued that the first appellate court could not have reversed the findings of the trial court on this issue. Reliance was placed upon Order 41 Rule 22 C. P. C. in this connection. On a construction of Order 41 Rule 22 C. P. C. it is quite clear that respondent to an appeal against whom some issue or some part of the issue has been decided, has two remedies open. He can either file cross-objections or he may during the course of appeal state that the findings given against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. Thus both the remedies were open to the respondent. THE respondent, who may not have appealed against any part of the decree, could not only support the decree but also state that the findings against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour. Remedy of filing cross-objections is an additional remedy.