Order XLI Rule 22 CPC | Not Mandatory For Decree Holder To File Cross-Objection In Appeal If Decree Not Liable To Be Modified: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that it is not mandatory for the decree holder to submit a written cross-objection in appeal if they are averring that the decree is not liable to be modified.The bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that the decree holder would have to file their cross-objection in cases where they contend that the decree is liable to be...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently observed that it is not mandatory for the decree holder to submit a written cross-objection in appeal if they are averring that the decree is not liable to be modified.
The bench comprising Justice G.S. Ahluwalia observed that the decree holder would have to file their cross-objection in cases where they contend that the decree is liable to be modified-
A decree holder can assail the findings by filing cross-objection. However if the decree granted in favour of the decree holder is not liable to be modified even after setting aside the findings, the filing of cross-objection in writing is not necessary and the decree holder can always assail the findings by verbally challenging the same before the Appellate Court. However, where the decree is liable to be modified, then the cross-objection in writing is mandatory.
Facts of the case were that the Appellant/Plaintiff had instituted a suit in the trial court for declaration of title against the Defendants. However, the suit was decided in the favour of the Defendants, against which Appellant/Plaintiff preferred an appeal. The lower appellate court upheld the decision of the trial court. Aggrieved, the Appellant preferred an appeal before the High Court.
One of the contentions raised by the Appellant before the Court was that the Respondents/Defendants had not complied with the condition under Order XLI Rule 22 CPC to file their cross-objection in the appeal before the lower appellate court. It was averred that without the cross-objection of the Respondents on record, the lower appellate court could not have dismissed the appeal. Per contra, the Respondents submitted that they were not under compulsion to file their written cross-objection before the lower appellate court and that they were within their rights to raise their cross-objection verbally.
Examining the submissions of parties and documents on record, the Court concurred with the arguments of the Respondents. Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Hardevinder Singh v. Paramjit Singh & Ors. [(2013) 9 SCC 261], the Court noted that the Respondents ought to have filed their cross-objection in case they were challenging any part of the decree that was against their interests. However, in case they are not challenging any portion of the decree, they can make their averment verbally before the Court.
With the aforesaid observations, the contention raised by the Appellant was rejected and accordingly, the appeal was dismissed.
Case Title: Smt. Hiriya Bai v. Butha & Ors. [S.A. 154/2017]
Case Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (MP) 57