Hardevinder Singh vs. Paramjit Singh & others, Civil Appeal No. 102 of 2013 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No. 35271 of 2011), Decided on 7th January, 2013
The Hon’ble Supreme Court held:
“After the 1976 amendment of Order 41 Rule 22, the insertion made in sub-rule (1) makes it permissible to file a cross-objection against a finding. The difference is basically that a respondent may defend himself without taking recourse to file a crossobjection to the extent the decree stands in his favour, but if he intends to assail any part of the decree, it is obligatory on his part to file the crossobjection”.[Para 18]
The Court also noted following case laws:
Banarsi and Others v. Ram Phal AIR 2003 SC 1989, it has been observed that
“the amendment inserted in 1976 is clarificatory and three situations have been adverted to therein. Category No. 1 deals with the impugned decree which is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondent. Dealing with such a situation, the Bench observed that in such a case, it is necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take cross-objection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though he is entitled to support that part of the decree which is in his favour without taking any cross-objection. In respect of two other categories which deal with a decree entirely in favour of the respondent though an issue had been decided against him or a decree entirely in favour of the respondent where all the issues had been answered in his favour but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against him, in the pre-amendment stage, he could not take any cross-objection as he was not a person aggrieved by the decree. But post amendment, read in the light of explanation to sub-rule (1), though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection laying challenge to any finding adverse to him as the decree is entirely in his favour, yet he may support the decree without cross-objection. It gives him the right to take cross-objection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing with an issue. It is apt to note that after the amendment in the Code, if the appeal stands withdrawn or dismissed for default, the crossobjection taken to a finding by the respondent would still be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent under the unamended Code.
To see entire text follow the links: