Value of Cross objection .
The excerpt is from a Supreme Court of India judgment regarding cross-objections in appeals. It explains that cross-objections, similar to appeals, allow respondents to challenge parts of a judgment they disagree with, even if they didn't initially appeal. The court clarified that withdrawing the main appeal doesn't cancel cross-objections, which can still be heard and decided upon separately. This case highlights procedural rights in Indian law regarding appeals and cross-objections.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Page 1 of 2
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 1787 of 2005
PETITIONER:
Hari Shankar Rastogi
RESPONDENT:
Sham Manohar & Ors
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16/03/2005
BENCH:
S. N. Variava & H. K. Sema
JUDGMENT:
J U D G M E N T
[Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.10396 of 2004]
S. N. VARIAVA, J.
Leave granted.
Heard parties.
This Appeal is against the Judgment dated 22nd January,
2004 passed by the High Court of Delhi. The Respondent had filed the
Second Appeal. The Appellant (herein) filed cross-objections in that
Appeal. When the Appeal reached hearing, the Respondent withdrew
his Second Appeal. By the impugned Judgment, it has been held that
as the Appeal has been withdrawn the cross objections emanating
from the Regular Second Appeal automatically cease to survive. On
this reasoning, the cross objection has been dismissed.
The question whether the cross objections are
maintainable, even when the Appeal has been withdrawn was
considered by this Court in Superintending Engineer and Ors. vs.
B. Subba Reddy reported in 1999(4) SCC 423. After considering
various Judgments, it was held as follows:-
"From the examination of these judgments and
the provisions of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41 Rule
22 of the Code, in our view, the following principles
emerge:
(1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a
creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist
unless it is specifically conferred.
(2) Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has
all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of
memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of
the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents
of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-objection as
well.
(3) Court fee is payable on cross-objection
like that on the memorandum of appeal. Provisions
relating to appeal by an indigent person also apply to
cross-objection.
(4) Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is
dismissed for default, cross-objection may nevertheless be
heard and determined.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Page 2 of 2
(5) The respondent even though he has not
appealed may support the decree on any other ground but
if he wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to
the decree which objections he could have taken earlier by
filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the
nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of
notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This
time could also be extended by the court like in appeal.
(6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal,
a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent
wanted to give a quietus to the whole litigation by his
accepting the judgment and decree and order even if it
was partly against his interest. When, however, the other
party challenged the same by filing an appeal the statute
gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by
way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the
judgment and decree or order."
Thus, it is clear that cross objection is like an Appeal. It
has all the trappings of an Appeal. Even when the Appeal is withdrawn
or is dismissed, cross-objection can still be heard and determined.
On behalf of the Respondents, reliance was placed upon
the authority of this Court in Municipal Corporation of Delhi and
Ors. vs. International Security and Intelligence Agency Ltd.
reported in 2004 (3) SCC 250, However, in our view this authority
does not lay down any contrary proposition . In the Judgment, it has
also been held that right to prefer cross objection partakes of the right
to prefer an Appeal. It has been held that a party may rest content by
partial success with a view to giving a quietus to the litigation.
However, if he finds that the other party is not interested in burying
the hatchet, then he may also like to exercise his right of Appeal which
he may do by filing cross objections. It has been held that the
substantive right is the right of Appeal and the form of cross objection
is merely a matter of procedure.
As a cross objection is in the nature of an Appeal, the High
Court was wrong in holding that the cross-objection did not survive on
the Appeal being withdrawn.
In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned
Judgment and remit the cross objections back to the High Court for
disposal on merits. The Respondent, herein will be entitled to take up
all contentions in support of the Judgment appealed against, even
though he may have withdrawn his Appeal.
The Appeal stands disposed of accordingly. There will
Comments
Post a Comment