Order :

Ramesh Madhav Bapat, J.

1. O.P. No.244 of 1987 and O.P. No.96 of 1998 were decided by the Senior Civil Judge, Peddapalli, Karimnagar District. Aggrieved by the said awards passed in the aforesaid O.Ps., the State of Andhra Pradesh preferred A.S. No.153 of 2000 and A.S. No.705 of 2000 before this Court. The Division Bench of this Court decided both the appeals on 27-12-2000. After the disposal of the appeals, the original claimant-cross-objector filed cross-objections along with the delay condonation applications. The delay was condoned and the cross-objections were placed before us for final hearing.

2. The only point arises for our consideration in the cross-objections is whether the cross-objections can be filed after the main appeals are finally disposed of-

3. The learned counsel Mr. S.R. Ashok appearing on behalf of the respondent-cross-objector submitted at the Bar that it is not necessary that the appeals must be pending and then only the cross-objections can be filed. It was further contended by the learned counsel Mr. S.R. Ashok that the period of limitation has to be calculated from the date of notice of the appeals and therefore it was submitted that the cross-objections can be heard and decided on merits. In support of his contention, the learned counsel Mr. S.R. Ashok relied upon a ruling reported in Superintending Engineer and others v. B. Subba Reddy, 1999 AIR SC 1747. In para (24) of the judgment their Lordships were pleased to hold as under:

'24. From the examination of these judgments and the provisions of Sec.41 of the Act and Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code, in our view, following principles emerge:

(1)Appeal is a substantive right. It is creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred.

(2)Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the Memorandum of Appeal apply to cross-objection as well.

(3)Court fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeals by indigent person also apply to cross-objection.

(4)Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and determined.

(5)Respondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any other ground but if wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection, which is in the nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could also be extended by the Court like in appeal.

(6)Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give quietus to whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.'-

We have no hesitation in accepting the aforesaid proposal (sic. propositions). But we have to see as to how far the ratio laid down by their Lordships apply to the present set of facts.

4. Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. speaks about the cross-objections to be filed in the appeal, which reads as under:

'22. Upon hearing, respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal:

(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 objecti