Jabalpur Development Authority vs Y.S. Sachan And Ors. on 12 February, 2004
The question that falls for consideration before the Full Bench is framed thus:-
"Under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure there is a specific provision for the filing of cross-objections. These provisions admittedly apply to all appeals filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. So much so, against the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge upon a first appeal when a Letters Patent Appeal is filed, in that Letters Patent Appeal, cross-objections could be filed by the respondent therein. We fail to see how and when the writ appeal also is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code could be excluded, there is no rule in the Writ Proceedings Rules which can be said to be inconsistent with Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code. In fact the rules are silent as to whether cross-objections could be filed or not. We may add that the Writ Proceedings Rules by themselves do not provide any remedy. They regulate the proceedings which may be instituted by virtue of some other provisions of substantive law, the writ petitions are filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and the writ appeals are filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. It is to govern these proceedings that the writ proceedings Rules have been framed. This was necessity for the reason that in the Appellate Side Rules, there is no specific provision governing the writ petitions. Moreover, specific procedure had ' to be devised for regulating the petitions filed before this Court on the Original Side invoking the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of the High Court. The rules are procedural rules and do not confer or take away the substantive right of appeal or the right of filing of cross-objections.
On the other hand there is an express provision in Rule 24 that in relation to causes and matters coming up before the High Court on the original side or the appellate side, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure will govern. We therefore, fell no hesitation in holding that the writ appeal being a proceeding on the appellate side of the High Court and being a civil proceeding, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure would apply and Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code which makes, a provision for the filing of cross-objections, would therefore, equally apply to a writ appeal. Consequently, the cross-objection, which in this case is termed as 'cross writ appeal' are maintainable. The mere fact that it has been numbered as an independent writ appeal does not affect to the character of the petition filed by the writ petitioner. The 'cross writ appeal' is accordingly treated as 'cross objections' under Order 41, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code and the same having been filed before expiry of thirty days of the filing of the main Writ Appeal No. 967/82 no question of limitation arises. In objection as to maintainability of Writ Appeal No. 1093 of 82 is overruled."
Mangala D/O Dinkar Shankar ... vs Laxman Ganpat Jadhav on 19 September, 2007
Para8 “Whenever a party who is successful in getting a decree finds that there is an adverse finding recorded against the said party in the judgment, the said party cannot prefer an appeal challenging the decree. The remedy of such party to challenge those findings is by way of cross objection whenever the other party has filed an appeal challenging the decree. But if the other party has not filed the appeal then in that circumstances such findings cannot be challenged by the party like appellant. In the present matter the respondent-husband has not challenged the decree passed by the Family Court and therefore the objections to the findings as raised by the appellant cannot be entertained even by way of a cross objection or cross appeal. Therefore, we find that the appeal on that ground is not maintainable.”
Union Bank Employees Association vs Union Bank Of India on 6 August, 2001
6. The award of the Central Industrial Tribunal is in favour of the management and there was no occasion or necessity for the management to file a writ petition in this Court. I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that against the adverse findings given on a particular point though ultimately decision is in favour of the litigant still writ has to be filed. In case where the writ petition would have been filed by the respondent management challenging the finding of the Industrial Tribunal regarding the appointment of Ashok Kumar I have my own reservation whether it could have been admitted by the court. The management could not have filed any cross objection as the provisions of Code of the Civil Procedure are not applicable in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Keshab Narayan Banerjee vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax And ... on 28 August, 1998
“8. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, reads as under ;
"Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the appellate court 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 court may see fit to allow."
9. Proceedings in a writ application filed under Article 226 of the Constitution and an appeal arising therefrom under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent strictly would not be civil proceedings in the sense that technically they are not governed by the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, yet they being in the nature of civil proceedings, the principles contained in Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code, should apply in all Letters Patent appeals. After all a respondent who was partly successful in the writ proceedings should clearly decide whether to appeal against the unsuccessful part of the judgment of the learned single judge or to agitate in the appeal court the finding which may go against him. Such a partly successful respondent, therefore, can prefer its own appeal against that part of the judgment which goes against it or may, in the appeal of the writ petitioner decide to file cross-objection(s) in respect of the findings which have gone against him. If he does neither, it is still open to him to take recourse to the provision contained in Rule 22(1) of Order 41, Civil Procedure Code, and urge the court hearing the appeal that the finding against him by the learned single judge in respect of an issue ought to have been in his favour. This is the limited right made available under the amended Rule 22(1). This right, however, has to be exercised with clear limitation and a contingent condition that the ultimate result of the appeal shall not amount to upset the judgment of the learned single judge in so far as the nature and extent of the relief granted to the writ petitioner (appellant in the Letters Patent appeal) is concerned. A person, the respondent in the writ application, who does not choose to file appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge, even though a substantial part of such judgment goes against him, nor does he choose to file cross-objections in the appeal filed by the writ petitioner, cannot be permitted to urge the court to set at naught even that relief which was partially given to the writ petitioner by the learned single judge. Subject to such limitation and contingent condition, such a respondent may be allowed to assail a finding on an issue returned by the learned single judge which went against him. In the present case, as noticed, the Revenue has neither filed any appeal against the judgment of the learned single judge nor did it file any cross-objections in the appeal filed by the petitioner and yet it wanted to challenge the aforesaid two findings regarding the mode of service based on "refusal" and "affixation". If the respondent is allowed to challenge these two findings, or even one of them, and if the challenge is successful, the result would be that in the appeal we shall have to hold that the service of notice by "refusal mode" or "affixation mode", as the case may be, or by both of them was proper, and, if once we take that view, even the limited relief given by the learned single judge to the appellants would have to be set aside. The net result, therefore, would be that the appellant who filed the appeal against the part of the relief which was not given to him by the learned single judge would be deprived of even that part which was given to him, only because he came up in appeal against the unsuccessful part, even though the respondent did not prefer any appeal against any part of the judgment, successful or otherwise. We have no hesitation to hold that such a course of action, from the interpretation of Rule 22(1) is not permissible. We, therefore, did not permit Mr. Prasad to challenge these two findings under Rule 22(1). These two findings, therefore, in our view, have assumed finality and cannot be upset or disturbed by us in this appeal.”
S.K. Awasthy vs M.R. Bhope, Presiding Officer, ... on 29 January, 1993
The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 2 invited the attention of the Court to the provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 22 and Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure as and by way of analogy. Order 41, Rule 33, Code of Civil Procedure empowers the appellate Court to pass any order it deems fit even though the appeal is filed against part of the decree and no cross appeal or cross objections are filed by the respondents as more particularly set out therein. In my opinion, Order 41, Rule 33 or Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be applied to a writ petition by analogy. A writ petition is not an appeal. The jurisdiction and powers of Writ Court shall have to be ascertained independently of Order 41, Rule 22 or Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In one sense, powers of writ Court are wider and in another sense narrower.