Point of Law: Word "cross objection" is neither defined in Code nor in Rules.

ORDER :

1. The captioned writ petition is filed questioning the order dated 11.10.2019 passed on I.A.No.5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in R.A.No.10035/2015.

2. The facts leading to the case are as under:

The present petitioner is the appellant in R.A.No.10035/2015. The present petitioner instituted a suit for specific performance of contract by alleging that the respondent/defendant has executed an agreement to sell on 01.02.2004 in respect of Sy.No.57 measuring 4 acres and Sy.No.157 measuring 4 acres. The present petitioner alleged that respondent/defendant while executing suit agreements have jointly received a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-i.e., Rs.50,000/-on each agreement with a condition that sale transaction would be completed within a period of six months. The suit is decreed in part. The Trial Court has declined to grant specific performance of contract and defendant is directed to repay the advance sale consideration amount of Rs.25,000/-along with 12% interest.

3. Against the dismissal of the suit insofar as main relief of specific performance of contract is concerned, the present petitioner has preferred an appeal in R.A.No.10035/2015. The respondent/defendant feeling aggrieved by the findings recorded by the Trial Court on issue No.1 and additional issue No.1 has preferred a cross appeal. The Appellate Court while entertaining the cross appeal has proceeded to condone the delay of 210 days in filing the cross appeal and the cross appeal is taken on record.

4. The present petitioner is questioning the order dated 11.10.2019 feeling aggrieved by the order passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The grievance of the petitioner before this Court is that there is a procedural error committed by the Appellate Court. The contention of the petitioner is that without registering the cross appeal and assigning a separate number, the appeal is entertained. The petitioner's contention before this Court is that a separate order sheet needs to be maintained insofar as cross appeal is concerned. Therefore, the petitioner contend that the Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act without registering the cross appeal and therefore, it is contended that the order passed on I.A.No.5 filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is one without jurisdiction and therefore, the same is not maintainable.

5. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent would, however, counter the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner. He would place reliance on the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan in the case of State of Rajasthan and Others vs. Raghuraj Singh, AIR 1968 Raj 14. Referring to the said judgment, he would point out that the Rajasthan High Court while dealing with an identical issue was of the view that the appeal and cross objection form part of one and the same record and therefore, there is no need for the Registry to assign separate numbers and therefore, the appeal and cross appeal cannot be treated as two separate appeals which would invite the Registry to assign two separate numbers. He would further place reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Jayarama Reddy and Another vs. Revenue Divisional Officer and Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnoo, AIR 1979 SC 1393. The Hon'ble Apex Court has referred to the judgment rendered by the High Court of Rajasthan and the principles laid down by the Rajasthan High Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Referring to the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Jayarama Reddy (supra), he would conclude his arguments by contending that the issue raised in the present petition would not survive for consideration as the said issue is put to rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court.

6. By way of reply, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would, however, counter the submissions and would contend that the judgme