The next question which arises is with regard to cross-objections. In my opinion, it is quite clear that if an appeal is rejected for non-payment of court-fee, cross-objections must fail with the appeal. Cross-objections, under Order XLI, Rule 22, are a method by which the respondent may himself complain against the decree appealed from, but the right to lodge cross-objections is only given to a respondent on an appeal, and if the appeal is rejected, there can be no respondent and no cross-objections. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 provides that when an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross-objections may be proceeded with; but where an appeal is rejected, it cannot, in my opinion, be said to be withdrawn or dismissed for default. The cases on the subject were discussed by the Rangoon High Court in U Shin v. Maung Tha Gywe (1930) I.L.R. 8 Ran. 538, and the learned Judges there came to the conclusion that where the memorandum of appeal is rejected for non-payment of court-fees, the cross-objections must fail with the appeal. I think that decision is correct.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Appeal No. 56 of 1939
Decided On: 10.01.1941
Kashiram Chaudhuri Vs. Ranglal Motilalshet Marwadi
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
J.W.F. Beaumont, Kt., C.J. and K.C. Sen, J.
Citation: AIR 1942 Bom. 242
Authored By : J.W.F. Beaumont, K.C. Sen
J.W.F. Beaumont, C.J.
