The right to cross-object under Order 41, Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code is an additional right and not a limited right. The mere fact of the pendency of an appeal by the respondent would not affect his right to cross-object. The dismissal of the appeal not on merits would also not affect his right to cross-object.

Chagla, C.J. :- This is an appeal which arises out of an order made by the Register of Trade Marks. The respondent applied for registration of his trade mark on 21-8-1942. The application was advertised on 1-10-1945, and the appellant filed his notice of opposition on 28-3-1946. The respondent submitted his reply on 12-7-1916. On 5-12-1947, the appellant filed affidavits in which he referred to a certain panchnama dated 19-10-1947. The case of the appellant was that his father was the proprietor of the trade mark which the respondent was seeking to register, and that by this document of 1937 his father had given leave and licence to the respondent to use the trade mark and the trade mark was to be used by the respondent only so long as the leave and licence had not been revoked. An affidavit was made by the respondent in reply to the affidavit of the appellant, but no reference was made in this affidavit to the panchnama relied upon by the appellant in his affidavit. At the hearing before the Registrar, the respondent challenged the panchnama as a forgery. He contended that it did not bear his signature. The learned Registrar came to the conclusion that the panchnama was a genuine document, but he held that the provision of the panchnama militated against public policy inasmuch as the appellants father permitted the respondent to use the trade mark for an indefinite period and acquire a reputation in the market, and then permitted the appellants father to revoke the licence at any time he so desired. The view he took was that, if the revocation was within a reasonable time, the position might be different, but, as the position stood, it was against public policy. He, therefore, held that, notwithstanding the proof of the panchnama, as the respondent had proved user of his trade mark in certain districts in the State of Madras, he therefore ordered registration of the mark limited to certain districts. From this order of the Registrar the appellant appealed to the High Court. That appeal came before Coyajee, J., and the appeal was dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation. The respondent also appealed from the order of the Registrar. That appeal came before Shah, J. To that appeal the appellant cross-objected. Shah, J., set aside the order of the Registrar in so far as it limited the registration of the trade mark to the two districts specified in the order, and he called upon the Registrar to proceed to hear the petition according to law and decide the question as to whether the petitioner was entitled to obtain registration of the mark without any limitation. He also held that the cross-objections of the appellant did not lie inasmuch as the appeal preferred by him had been dismissed by Coyajee, J. The reason which led the learned Judge to remand the petition to the Registrar was that an opportunity was denied to the respondent to prove that the panchnama was not a genuine document; and the learned Judge also says in his judgment that an application for adjournment was made by the respondent in order to lead evidence with regard to the authenticity of the document and that application for adjournment was refused.

2. Now, with regard to this application for adjournment we find that, in the grounds of appeal before the learned Judge below, it is nowwhere mentioned that the application for adjournment was made in order to enable the respondent to establish that the document under consideration was a forgery. As a matter of fact, the grounds refer only to one application for adjournment, which was to enable the respondent to produce his books of account from Trichinopoly to prove continuous user of the said mark since 1923. We have been told at the bar that an application for adjournment was made to the Registrar in order to enable the respondent to lead evidence as to the genuineness of the panchnama. But there is no record of any such application in the notes of the Registrar. It is unnecessary to conside