Satya Parkash Goyal, J. - (1.) F.A.O. No. 440 of 1982 was dismissed in limine after notice of motion and in the presence of the learned counsel for the respondent vide order dated November 26, 1982. Thereafter, the respondent filed these cress -objections along with Civil Misc. Application No. 5281 -CII of 1982 for recalling the said order and disposal of the cross -objections on merits. We found no merit in the contention of the respondent that the order of dismissal of the appeal could be recalled to enable him to file cross -objections and accordingly dismissed that petition. In spite of the fact that the prayer for recalling the order had been declined, the learned counsel for the respondent contended that the cross -objections would be maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 41 Rule 22 (1) and (4) of the Code of Civil Procedure. The said sub -rules read as under : - - (1) 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 either such further time as the appellate Court may see fit to allow. (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Where in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the court thinks fit. The argument of the learned counsel is that the respondent has a right to file cross -objections within one month of the service of the date of the hearing of the appeal on him even though the main appeal may be dismissed prior to the filing of the cross -objections. The argument is wholly misconceived. The provisions of sub -rule (1) of rule 22 come into play only after the appeal has been admitted to hearing. If the appeal is dismissed in limine, no cross -objections would be competent. A similar view was expressed by the Division Bench decisions of the Calcutta High Court in M/S Kantilal and Bros v/s. Ramarani Debi : A.I.R. 1979 Cal. 152 and the Rajasthan High Court in Ram Kirpal v/s. Radhey Shyam : A.I.R. 1970 Raj. 234. If the contention of the learned counsel is accepted it v/s. ill lead to highly anomalous situation in as much as a party who has lost his right by lapse of time to challenge that part of the decree which has gone against him by filing the appeal would get a fresh right of filing the appeal, the moment the other party files the appeal because there is hardly any material difference in the efficacy of the two remedies i.e. the cross -objections and the regular appeal. The right to file cross -objections is given to the party who felt satisfied with the decree even though it partly went against him as he is dragged to the litigation again on the filing of the appeal by the opposite party. But prior to the admission of the appeal and issuance of notice to him, he is under no obligation to suffer in litigation. The right to challenge any part of the decree on his own having been lost by him by the lapse of time, he obviously would not be able to revive that right simply because the opposite party has filed the appeal and the right to file cross -objections would only accrue to him if the appeal is admitted and he is called upon to defend the decree passed in his favour.
(2.) Reliance on sub -rule (4) is again wholly misconceived because it only enables the respondent to get his cross -objections validly filed, decided on merit even though the appeal may have been withdrawn or dismissed for default. The provisions of this sub -rule there -fore, have nothing to do as to the right and the stage of the filing of the cross -objections. Even according to the provisions of this sub -rule, the cross -objections can be heard and determined on merit if the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn or for default after admission and have no applicability where the appeal is dismissed in limine which is dismissal on merits. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the cross -objections filed after dismissal of the appeal in limine are not maintainable and same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. S.S. Sodhi, J.;