Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2004 (1) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2004 (1) TMI 96 - SC - Indian LawsWhether a cross-objection, as contemplated by Order 41 Ruse 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is at all maintainable in a civil appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution in this Court? Held that:- If the judgment of the High Court was partly against the respondent, it was for it to have filed an application seeking leave to appeal. That right having been foregone by it and the period of limitation having expired, the cross-objections cannot be entertained. The filing of cross-objections by a respondent in this Court is an attempt at exercising the right of filing an application for special leave to appeal after the expiry of limitation and in a manner not contemplated by Article 136 of the Constitution. The judgment of the High Court was delivered on 1-8-2000. Leave was granted to the appellant on 13-8-2001 in the presence of Counsel for the respondent. Formal notice of lodgment of appeal was served on the respondent on 28-9-2001. The application by way of cross-objections has been filed on 31-7-2002. The only reason assigned in the application seeking condonation of delay is that though the respondent-Trust had accepted the judgment of the High Court, it was advised and persuaded to file cross-objections because of the appellants having filed the application seeking leave to file an appeal and leave having been granted to them. We do not think such explanation, in the facts and circumstances of the case, amounts to sufficient cause for condoning the delay. Even on merits we do not find any reason to entertain the plea sought to be urged in cross-objections. As we have already pointed out, the respondents have accepted the judgment of the High Court and also acted thereon. Merely because the other party has preferred an appeal, that cannot be a ground for the respondent also to disown that part of the judgment which was acceptable to it. Further, the issue which is now sought to be re-agitated stands concluded by the earlier order of remand passed by this Court. The respondent cannot now, in the second round of appeal to this Court, be permitted to urge such pleas as it could have urged in the earlier round or which it urged and was not accepted by this Court. The cross-objections preferred by the respondent-Trust are dismissed as not maintainable and as also being devoid of any merit.
|