HIDAY HIDAYATULLAH TULL AH NATIONAL NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSI UNI VERSITY TY
A project on Cross Objections
SUBMITTED TO Mr. Mr. Inr! N!t" De# D e#
SUBMITTED BY An!nt E$$! Sec% A Ro&& no. '( D!te% ')*+,*)Sbject% Coe o/ Ci0i& 1rocere
CROSS OBJECTIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS At the outset, I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude and thank my teacher, Mr. Indra Nath Dey for putting his trust in me and giving me a project topic such as this and for having the faith in me to deliver. I thank you for an opportunity to help me grow. My gratitude also goes out to the staff and administration of N!" for the infrastructure in the form of our li#rary, I$ !a# and my friends that was a source of great help for the completion of this project.
Anant Ekka
%&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. 2. &. 4.
Introduction..................................................................................................................4 O!"cti#"$......................................................................................................................% '"$"arc( M"t(odo)o*+.................................................................................................% C(a,t"ri$ation I. Cro$$ O!"ction$ in an A,,"a) -.......................................................% II. Sco," and A,,)ication o t(" A,,"a) ................................................./ III. Natur" o t(" ri*(t to i)" cro$$ o!"ction$-......................................10 I. Circu$tanc" 3("r" cro$$ o!"ction$ n""d not to " i")d ................12 . Circu$tanc" 3("r" cro$$ o!"ction$ n""d to " i")d........................1& I. A*ain$t 3(o cro$$ o!"ction$ to " i")d ----------..14
II.
E"ct o cro$$ o!"ction$ 3("r" t(" a,,"a) i$ 3it(dra3 or aat"d or i$ di$i$$"d or d"au)t-------------. ------.1
. Conc)u$ion.......................................................................................................1% %. Bi)o*ra,(+......................................................................................................1/
(&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
INT'OD5CTION )efore entering the realm of cross*o#jections, it is necessary to first explain c e r t a i n matters as regards appeals in general. $he +xpression appeal has not #een defined in the ode of ivil 'rocedure, #ut it may #e defined as -the judicial examination of the decision #y a higher court of the decision of a lower court. It means the removal of a cause from an inferior court to a superior court for the purpose of testing the soundness of the decision of the inferior court. A right of appeal is not a natural or inherent right. It is well settled that an appeal is a creature of statute and there is no right of appeal unless it is given clearly and in express terms #y a statute. It is a su#stantive right and not merely a matter of procedure./ 0ection 12 of the ode of ivil 'rocedure recogni3es the right of appeal from every decree passed #y any court exercising original jurisdiction. It does not refer to or enumerate the persons who may file an appeal. owever #efore an appeal can #e filed under this 0ection, two conditions must #e satisfied. 4irstly the su#ject*matter of the appeal must #e a -decree, that is a conclusive determination of the -rights of the parties with regard to all or any of the matters in controversy in the suit and secondly, the party appealing must have #een adversely affected #y such a determination.% It is important to note that the code of civil procedure provides for an appeal from a decree and not a judgment. 0ection 12 of the code enacts that an appeal shall lie from every decree passed #y any court exercising original jurisdiction. 0o also, 0ection /55 allows a second appeal to the igh ourt from every decree passed in appeal. !ikewise, an appeal lies against an order under 0ection /56 read with 7rder 6( 8ule / of the ode of ivil 'rocedure. ence an appeal lies only against a 9decree: or an 9order: which is expressly made appeala#le under the code.
/
.; $hakwani, ivil 'rocedure, <=th +dition, !ucknow> +astern )ook ompany, %556? '. (/@. I#id,'.(%(
%
6&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
'EIEW OF LITE'AT5'E
.;. $akwani, ivil 'rocedure <@th +dn., %5/(?, p. ///,615,=5/,=56,=5=,=%5 Discussed the concept of ross o#jections. .
OB6ECTIES
I. II.
$o 0tudy the nature and scope of cross o#jections. $o study the relation #etween cross o#jections and appeals.
'ESEA'C7 85ESTIONS
I. II.
hat is ross o#jectionsB hat are the relation #etween cross o#jections and appealsB
'ESEA'C7 MET7ODOLOG9
$he method of research adopted for the project is analytical methodology. 4or the present project relevant data and information has #een received and collected from secondary sources and there has #een use of authentic #ooks and we#sites which provided relia#le information and data.
C'OSS OB6ECTIONS IN AN A::EAL =&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
$he ode of ivil 'rocedure, /15C
Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree #ut may also state that the finding against him in the ourt #elow in respect of any issue ought to have #een in his favourG and may also take any cross o#jection to the decree which he could have taken #y way of an appeal provided he has filed such o#jection in the Appellate ourt within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate ourt may see fit to allow.
<%?
+xplanation
*
A respondent aggrieved #y a finding of the ourt in the judgment
on which the decree appealed against is #ased may, under this rule, file cross* o#jection in respect of the decree in so far as it is #ased on that finding, notwithstanding that #y the reason of the decision of the ourt on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.
here, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of o#jection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the o#jection so filed may nevertheless #e heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the ourt thinks fit. $he provisions relating to appeals #y indigent persons shall, so far as they can #e made applica#le, apply to an o#jection under this rule.
2&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
SCO:E AND A::LICATION OF T7E '5LE $here are two links of the rule which give two remedies to the respondentG i. ii.
$he respondent supports the decree, and e attacks the decree #y taking cross*o#jection.
$he use of the word support makes it plain that the right given is limited to the sustaining of the decree in so far as it is in his favour, and does not extend #eyond so as to ena#le him an alienation giving him a further advantage.
$his he can secure only #y appeal or cross*o#jection. hen a suit is wholly dismissed or wholly decreed, it is open to the respondent to support the decision #y re* agitating ground negative #y the lower court. hen a suit is decreed in part and dismissed as to the rest the party who features as the respondent has a decree in his favour which he is allowed to support on any of the ground decided against him. hen he does this and no more he is only supporting and not attacking the decree, this point was pointed out in the famous case of Eenkata v 0atyanarayancsniurthy (. 8ule %% applies to the decrees and not to mere finding. $his is #ecause no appeal can #e preferred against any adverse findings recorded at the trial court. It is, however, interesting to note that the =6th !aw ommission report 6 had strongly recommended that appeals against finding s #e allowed, #ut, this recommendation was not accepted. $hus, as it stands now, if a suit is decreed in favors of a party, #ut, certain findings are recorded against him, he cannot go on appeal against those findings. $his is where 8ule %% of order !I of the ode of ivil 'rocedure gives a remedy to such party. owever, this remedy can only #e exercised, if the other party has preferred an appeal. owever, if the other party does not prefer an appeal, then the party against whom such findings were recorded has no remedy. 4or example, if in a suit filed #y A against ), the court holds that A has proved on merits the case against ), #ut he is #arred #y limitation and therefore the suit is decided in favors of ). In this case the decrees in favors of ), #ut, there are findings against him in the case which he cannot challenge unless A prefers an appeal. 7rder !I 8ule %% is a special provision permitting the respondent who has not filed an appeal against the decree to o#ject to the said decree #y filling cross o#jections in an appeal filed #y the opposite party. hen the suit is partly decided in the favors of the plaintiff and ( 6
/16( M 21C 4) http>HHwww.lawcommissionreportoncpc.ac.in, accessed on /CH/5H%5/(
@&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
partly in favors of the descendant and the aggrieved party enjoyed the plaintiff or the defendant files an appeal, the opposite party may adopt any of the following coursesG i.
e may prefer an appeal from the part of the decree which is against him. $hus, there may #e two appeals against the same decree, one #y the plaintiff and the other #y the defendant. $hey are known as cross Fappeals. )oth of these appeals will #e disposed of together.
ii.
e may not file an appeal against the part of the decree past against him, #ut may take o#jection against the same. 0uch o#jections are called crossed o#jections.
iii.
ithout filing a cross*appeal or a course*o#jecton, he may support the decree on the grounds decided in this favour #y then, or even, on the grounds decided against him. $his point was clarified in the case of 8ctmc3ri #hcii E Ajit imtr Da#hi =.
In the famous case of Eenkateshvarla v 8amana2, the igh ourt of Madras pointed out that the expression 9cross*o#jection: expresses the intention of the legislature that it can #e directed #y the respondent against the appellant. 7ne cannot treat an o#jection #y a respondent in which the appellant has no interest as a cross o#jection. $he appeal is #y the appellant against a respondent, the cross o#jection, must #e an o#jection #y a respondent against the appellant. ross o#jection is like cross appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. $he mere distinction #etween the two lies in the fact that whereas cross o#jection forms part of the same record.
ross
appeals are two distinct and independent proceedings. $his point was clarified #y the 0upreme ourt in the case of jayaram 8eddi v 8.D.7 @ ross o#jections can #e filed #y the respondentG
If he could have filed an appeal against any part of the decree.
If he is aggrieved #y a finding in the judgment even though the decree is in his fovour #ecause of some*other findings.
ross appeals and cross o#jections provide two different remedies for the same purpose, since the cross o#jection can #e filed on the points on which the party could have preferred a cross appeal. $he right to file cross o#jection is su#stantive in nature and not merely procedural as was pointed out in 'annalal v 0tate of )om#ayC. 7rdinarily, cross o#jection can #e filed only against the appellant. In exceptional cases, =
AI8 /12= 0. AI8 /C=1 Mad (@1 @
C&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
however, one respondent may file cross o#jection against the other respondent. In mahant Dhangir v Madan Mohan 1, the appeal #y some of the parties could not have off without opening the matter as #etween the respondent inter 0e, or in a case where the o#jections are common as against the appellant and core respondent, the 0upreme ourt opined that in such circumstances a respondent may file cross o#jections against other respondents. $hus when the relief sought against the appellant in cross* o#jection is interF mixed with the relief granted to the other respondents in such a way that the relief against the appellant cannot #e granted without the uestion reopened #etween the o#jecting respondent and other respondents, cross o#jection #y one respondent against the other respondent, may#e allowed/5. $he principle that no decision can #e made against a person who is not party to the proceedings applies, to cross o#jections also. ence, gross o#jections cannot #e allowed against a person who is not party to the appeal. hen the respondent has filed cross*o#jection, even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, they will #e heard and decided on merits. hen an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default and the cross*o#jections are decided on merits, restoration of appeal and rehearing will not automatically warrant re*hearing of the cross* o#jection. $his was held in the case of Nanoo v Neelaratnam //. owever, when the appeal is dismissed as time #arred or a#ated, or is held to #e non*maintaina#le, the cross o#jections cannot #e heard on merits as they are contingent and dependent upon the hearing of the appeal. $his was clarified in the case of hettiar v hetti/%.
ross o#jection shall #e in the form of a memorandum of appeal and they should #e served on the other party affected there#y or his pleader. $he respondent can file cross* o#jection as an indigent person /(.ross o#jections can #e filed within one month from the date of service on the respondent, or his pleaders of the notice of the date fixed for hearing off the appeal. $he appellate court may at its discretion, extend the period within which
cross o#jection
can #e filed
as
was he/d in the case of Eishwanath v 0rnt.Maharajee/6.
1
AI8 /1CC 0 =6. 8ule %% <6? order !I,the code of civil 'rocedure,/15C // AI8 /115 ;er /1@. /5
/%
AI8 /1/1 Mad @C6
/(
8ule %% <=? 7rder !I,the ode of ivil 'rocedure,/15 AI8 /1@@ All 6=1
/6
1&'age
CROSS OBJECTIONS
$he discretion, however, may#e exercised judicially and on sufficient cause for delay #eing shown and is open to review #y the superior court. $he appeal and the cross*o#jections should #e heard together and they should #e
disposed of #y a common judgment incorporating the decision on #oth on appeal as well as in the cross*o#jection. $his was held in ;rishna Jopal v aji Mohd1. A party in whose favour a decree has #een passed has a su#stantive and valua#le right which should not #e lightly interfered with. As an ordinary rule, therefore, in the a#sence of a cross appeal or a cross*o#jection, #y respondent, the appellate court has no power to distur# the decree of the lower court so far as it is in favour of the appellant. $his is, however, su#ject to the provisions of 7rder !I 8ule (( of the .'.. $his was clarified in the case of haudhary 0ahu v 0tate of )ihar /2.
NAT5'E OF T7E 'IG7T TO FILE C'OSS;OB6ECTIONS $he right to take a cross*o#jection in an appeal is nothing #ut the exercise of the same right of appeal which is given to an aggrieved party and is not a new right conferred #y 7rder 6/ 8ule %% of the '. onsider a case where there are two parties* A and ) and if A:s claim is decreed in part, A may appeal from the decree , alleging that the decree ought to have #een for the full amount claimed #y him, and ) also may appeal from the decree, alleging that the suit ought to have #een dismissed altogether. If A appeals from the decree, and ) also appeals. ):s appeal is called a cross*appeal, #ut instead of filing a cross*appeal, ) may file cross*o#jections under this rule. In cross*o#jections, ) may take any o#jection to the decree which he could have taken #y way of appeal. $he right to file a cross*o#jection is not dependent on acceptance of some part of the decree as goodG the whole of the decree can #e challenged. A cross*o#jection filed within time is not to #e treated as a cross*appeal, nor should a separate decree #e passed in respect thereof. "nder 7 6/, r %% of the ode of ivil 'rocedure cross*o#jection in lieu of cross*appeal is permissi#le as also cross*o#jection is permissi#le against an adverse finding. $he most important case in the area of cross*o#jections is that of 0uperintending +ngineer E. ) 0u##a 8eddy /@. $he facts of the case are as follows. An agreement was entered into #etween the appellant and the respondent for execution of the work called 9providing lining /=
AI8 /121 Del /%2. AI8 /1C% 0c 1C
/2
/@
AI8 /111 0 /@6@
/5 & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
to #et and side slopes of 'amidipadu )ranch anal. 4our separate agreements were entered into. As is usual in such contracts, disputes arose and these were referred to sole ar#itrator who gave separate awards dated April /C, /1C2 in respect of each of the agreements. $he ar#itrator allowed five claims of the respondents. hen the matter was pending #efore the 'rincipal 0u#ordinate Kudge, he reduced the award of interest from /CL per annum to / %L per annum. 7therwise he made all the four awards rule of the court and passed decrees in terms thereof. $he respondent did not challenge the grant of interest at the lower rate of /%L per annum #y the 'rincipal 0u#ordinate Kudge #y filing any appeal against his judgment making the awards rule of law. It was the appellant who appealed to the igh ourt against the judgment of the 'rincipal 0u#ordinate Kudge. 9hen notice of appeal was served on the respondent, he filed cross*o#jections under 7rder 6/ 8ule %% of the ode of ivil 'rocedure /. Appeal is a su#stantive right. It is a creation of the statute. 8ight to appeal does not unless it is specifically conferred. %. ross o#jection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of 8ule I of 7rder 6/ of the ode, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross* o#jection as well. (. ourt fee is paya#le on cross*o#jection like that on the memorandum of appeal. 'rovisions relating to appeals #y indigent person also apply to cross*o#jection. 6. +ven where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross*o#jection may nevertheless #e heard and determined. =. 8espondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any other ground #ut if wants to modify it, he has to file cross*o#jection to the decree which // & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
o#jections he could have taken earlier #y filing an appeal. $ime for filing o#jection which is in the nature of appeal is extended #y one month after service of notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. $his time could also #e extended #y the ourt like in appeal. 2. ross*o#jection is nothing #ut an appeal, a cross*appeal at that. It may #e that the respondent wanted to give uietus to whole litigation #y his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. hen, however, the other party challenged the same #y filing an appeal statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal #y way of cross*o#jection if he still felt aggrieved #y the judgment and decree or order. 4inally the 0upreme ourt held that cross*o#jections should not have #een allowed in this case since only the procedure of the ivil 'rocedure ode was applica#le to the Ar#itration Act and ross*7#jections were a su#stantive right.
CI'C5MSTANCES W7E'E C'OSS;OB6ECTIONS NEED NOT BE FILED 7rder 6/, 8ule %%.while allowing for cross*o#jections also allows for a respondent to defend the decree without filing cross*o#jections. $he rule even allows for the respondent to defend the decree #y arguing that an issue on which the decree was #ased that was decided against him in the lower court should actually have #een decided in his favour. A cross*o#jection could #e filed only with respect of a finding on which the decree appealed against is #ased. If in a suit #rought #y A against ). ) sets up two defences and the court of first instance decides #oth on ):s favour, and A appeals, there is no scope for cross*o#jection, for cross* o#jections cannot #e filed as criticisms of judgment., #ut if the court decides in ):s favour as to one and against him as to other then, if A appeals, ) may support the decree at the hearing of the appeal not only on the ground decided in his favour, #ut also on the ground decided against him without filing any cross*o#jections /C. $he filing of cross*o#jection in the manner provided in 5 6/, r%% of the ode of ivil 'rocedure is necessary, only if the respondent wants to take any cross*o#jection to the decree which he could have taken #y way of an appeal. owever, in order to support the decree or in order to argue that the find n respect of an issue should have #een in his favour, the respondent is not reuired to file a cross*
/C
M.p Kain,$he code of civil procedure,wadhawaco.,%556?'.///6.
/% & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
o#jection. At this juncture, the case of 0hriniwas v ;eshri hand /1 can #e examined to shed dome light on this issue.. $he facts of the case are as follows. 4our persons were duly nominated as candidates to the office of hairman of the Municipal )oard, Nokha. $he otering thryter was completed in three rounds. $he respondent, ;esarichand o#tained the highest num#er of votes in the third round and as such was declared elected to the office of hairman of the Municipal )oard, Nokha. $he case of the petitioner*appellant was that one of the nominees, Devkishan having received no vote in the first round, he should not have #een considered at all to have #een a candidate at the election and another nominee Jangadutt should have #een eliminated in the first round on the #asis of receiving the lowest num#er of votes and there should have #een only two rounds and not three. $he 8espondent had argued #efore the +lection tri#unal, in addition to various other grounds the petition was to #e dismissed since the two other contesting candidates were not made parties to the election petition. $he appellant had o#jected to the respondent raising this without filing a cross*o#jection. $he ourt, in giving it:s decision held that in an appeal against the dismissal of an petition on the merits, the respondent, the returned candidate, is not de#arred from raising the plea that the petition was lia#le to #e dismissed for non*joinder of the other contesting candidates as necessary parties on the ground that has not filed cross o#jective. e can do so on a new ground which can #e taken in appeal, as for example a pure uestion of law. In a second appeal, however the respondent cannot support a decree on a ground which would not have #een availa#le to him if he were an appellant.
CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE CROSS-OBJECTIONS NEED TO BE FILED ross*7#jections can #e filed #y the 8espondent as regards any issue that was decided against him which would influence the decree 0uch cross*o#jections can #e filed where the suit is wholly in favour of the 8espondent, or when it is decided partly in his favour and partly against him. owever ,cross*o#jective are only importance in situations where the 8espondent chooses to attack the decree as 7rder 6/ 8ule %% of the ' gives him the right to defend the decree effectively without filing cross*o#jections. hen a party having right to appeal does not prefer the same and waits for the adversary to file appeal and then *o#jection, runs the risk of availing the ualified alternative remedy on the adversary preferring a maintaina#le appeal. $herefore, the mere filing of cross*o#jections /1
AI8 /1C6 8aj /6
/( & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
does not ipso facto invest in the respondent an independent right of #eing heard on cross* o#jections. Normally, a party in whose favour the judgment appealed from is given will not #e allowed to appeal from it. onsiderations of justice therefore reuire that the appellate court should in appropriate cases, permit a party placed in such a position to support the judgment in his favour even upon grounds which were negative in that judgernent. No dou#ts courts appeal have from time to time adjudicated on points not canvassed #efore the trial court, #ut this power is never exercised unless the case is very clear and free from dou#t. It is only after the appeal court directs the issue of notice to the respondent that the stage of filing cross o#jections can arise and only then cross* o#jections can #e treated as having #een filed under su#*r
AGAINST WHOM CAN CROSS-OBJECTIONS BE FILED As a general rule respondent:s right to urge cross*o#jections should #e limited to urging them against the appellant. In exceptional circumstances it may however #e urged against co* respondents. $his usually happens only in cases when there are uestions which cannot #e disposed of completely without matters #eing allowed to #e opened up as #etween co* respondants. $his view was endorsed #y the 0upreme ourt in the case of 'anna !td v. 0tate of )om#ay%5. $he 0upreme ourt in giving it:s judgment as to whether cross*o#jections could #e file against co respondents, In a detailed judgment the ourt examined all the cases on the point, and came to a conclusion that -In our opinion, the view that has now #een accepted #y all the igh ourts that 7rder 6/, r. %% permits as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an o#jection directed only against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases, such as where the relief sought against the appellant in such an o#jection is intermixed with the relief granted to the %5
AI8 /111 0 /@6@
/6 & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
other respondents, so that the relief against the appellant cannot #e granted without the uestion #eing re*opened #etween the o#jecting respondent and other respondents, that an o#jection under 7r. 6/, r. %% can #e directed against the other respondents, is correct.
EFFECT ON C'OSS OB6ECTIONS W7E'E T7E A::EAL IS WIT7D'AWN O' 7AS ABATED O' IS DISMISSED FO' DEFA5LT It is clear from the provision of 5 6/, r%% <6? that if an appeal is withdrawn or the same is dismissed in default, in that circumstance the cross*o#jection will not automatically get rejected on the ground that the appeal has #een dismissed. $he provision of the aforesaid rule will #e attracted only in those cases where the appeal is incompetent since its inception or is #arred #y time. $he withdrawal of an appeal is no #ar to the hearing of cross*o#jection field #y a respondent, whether the appeal is no #ar to the hearing. 0imilarly, the dismissal of an appeal for default is no #ar to the hearing of cross*o#jections. $his was correctly admitted in the case of facts of )himasena v Eenugopal %/. $he 4acts of the case are as follows are as follows. $he dismissal of an appeal upon he appellant:s failure to give security for costs is a dismissal 9for default: within the meaning of su#*r <6? and so is a dismissal for failure to pay costs of the paper #ook. $he dismissal of an appeal after hearing does not #ar the hearing of a cross* appeal especially when it remained indisposed of owing to inadvertence. 7rder 6/, r %%<6? which is an ena#ling provision for hearing cross*o#jective in case of dismissal of appeal in default or withdrawal of appeal does not de#ar the court from hearing cross*o#jections even if the appeal is disposed off on merit the same will hold good even in a case where appeal is disposed of inadvertently or for any other reason without considering cross*o#jections. owever, if the appeal has a#ated, the respondent and is not entitled to have his cross* o#jections heard even though the legal representative of the deceased have #een #rought on record in the cross*appeal, if the appeal is incompetent, the cross*o#jections have to #e rejected as not maintaina#le.
%/
AI8 /1%= Mad @%=
/= & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
CONCL5SION ross*o#jections are a valua#le tool in the hand of people who have right to appeal. A cross* o#jection is a su#stantive right identical to the right to appeal. It allows in effect an appeal to a respondent who has chose not to for a certain period and is #arred from time #y doing so after the period when the opposing partly in his favour and party in favour of the other party and 0econdly when though the decree is completely in his favour, certain issues were decided against him, ross*o#jections can only #e filed concerning an issue on which the decree is #ased and can only field #y the respondent. $he only real effect that the amendments have had is to clarify the position as regards cross* o#jections. 7rder 6/ 8ule %% of the code of civil 'rocedure which is the provision that allow for cross*o#jections, also states that a respondent may defend a decree #y arguing that G.Gan issue decided against him at a lower court should have #een decided in his favour without filling a cross*o#jection. $hus a cross*o#jection only needs to #e filed if the respondent want a change in the decree or is attacking the decree. 7therwise logically a cross*o#jection would not #e warranted since court*fee has to paid on a cross*o#jection and if a respondent only wishes to defend the decree, he can do so without paying anything as first part of order 6% 8ule / allows to do so effectively even without a filing a cross*o#jection.
/2 & ' a g e
CROSS OBJECTIONS
BIBLIOG'A:79
6O5'NALS < BOOKS
M.' Kain,$he ode of civil 'rocedure,adhwao.,%556?
Mulla:s ode of civil 'rocedure,/2th +dition,New Delhi>)utterworths,%55%?
.;$hakwani,ivil 'rocedure, <=th +dition,!ucknow>+astern )ook ompany,%556?
/@ & ' a g e
