IN CA 4172 OF 2023- SC- Code of Civil Procedure -- Cross objection has all the trappings of a regular appeal and must be considered in full by the Court adjudicating upon the same: Supreme Court
Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi [04-07-2023]

Read More: Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority

Simran Singh

New Delhi, July 5, 2023: The Supreme Court has allowed an appeal contending that the issues raised by them in their cross objections were not considered by the Delhi High Court. The Top Court held that while the High Court had given a detailed analysis of all other issues raised in the appeal and both the lower court orders, however, the cross objections in specific found no discussion, much less even a mention. The Apex Court stated that a cross objection had all the trappings of a regular appeal and must be considered in full by the Court adjudicating upon the same.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Bela M. Trivedi stated that the High Court was under an obligation to consider the cross objections filed by the appellants while referring Order 41 Rule 22 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) which provides for remedies available to a respondent in the Court of First Appeal where an original decree had been challenged.

The Court stated that in cases where the decree passed by the court of first instance was in favour of the respondent in whole, no remedy existed in favour of the respondent to appeal such decree, since no right to appeal could be vested onto a party, which was successful. However, in cases where the decree given by the court of first instance, was partly in favour of the respondent, but was also partly against the respondent, two remedies within Order 41 Rule 22 CPC remained with the respondent, which were

1. To file their cross objections and,
2. To support the decree in whole.
3. Right to file a cross appeal

The Bench stated that in cases where the opposing party filed a first appeal against part or whole of the original decree, and the respondent in the said first appeal, due to part or whole of the decree being in their favour, abstained from filing an appeal at the first instance, in such cases, to ensure that the respondent was also given a fair chance to be heard, he was given the right to file his cross objections within the appeal already so instituted by the other party, against not only the contentions raised by the other party, but also against part or whole of the decree passed by the court of first instance.

The Bench stated that in a similar circumstance, where the other party in the first instance had preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent could also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence was a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party. The respondent also had the right to fully support the original decree passed by the lower court in full.

It was stated that while cross objections, unlike a regular appeal, were filed within an already existing appeal, however, as per Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, cross objections had all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same.

The Bench after perusing a catena of cases therefore remanded the case to the High Court for fresh adjudication on the grounds raised in the cross objections during appeal by the appellants.