- (1.) Heard the learned Advocates appearing for the parties
(2.) An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, being CAN 8084 of 2005. is taken up for hearing
(3.) From the report of the Stamp Reporter who has dealt with the matter, it appears that on 2nd September, 2005 a note was endorsed on the file of the cross-objection as filed, being numbered as COT 2699 of 2005, that there was a delay of 13 days to prefer this cross-objection with reference to the appeal, being SAT 1727 of 2005, on calculating such 13 days from the date of service of the appeal on 22nd June, 2005 From the order sheet of the Second Appeal, SAT 1727 of 2005, it appears that the appeal was admitted for hearing on 13th July, 2005 under Order 41 Rule 11 of the C P C In view of the office note cross- objection file was directed to be returned to the learned Advocate so that appropriate application praying for condonation of delay may be filed In pursuance of such note, this application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed by the plaintiff/respondent of the said Second Appeal To satisfy that there was sufficient reason not to approach the Court in time, reasons have been assigned in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The Court is not concerned at the present moment with that pleading Having regard to the statutory provision of law and on the reflection of the records of the Second Appeal, a question has been cropped up as to whether there was at all any necessity to file any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act The relevant provision now to be looked into Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure is the relevant rule by which the cross appeal could be preferred with reference to any appeal filed under certain contingencies Order 41 Rule 22 tends to this effect "22 Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal-(1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support ( but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any ought to have been in his favour, and may so take any cross-objection) to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal provided he has filed such objection in the Appellant 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 (Explanation-A respondent, aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court 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) (2) Form of objection and provisions applicable thereto - Such cross-objection shall be in the form of a memorandum, and the provisions of rule 1, so far as they relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto (4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit (5) The provisions relating to appeals by indigent persons shall, so far as they can be made applicable, apply to an objection under this rule ";