1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for recovery of money on the strength of two chitty transactions was partly allowed by the Munsiff and the plaintiff was granted a decree for a sum of Rs.420/- with interest thereon. Plaintiff filed A.S.100 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, Cross objection was filed by the defendant. When the appeal and cross objection were taken for hearing counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported no instructions and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Defendant's counsel argued the cross objection and the learned Sub Judge dismissed it.

2. Contention of the defendant is that the Sub Judge was not justified in hearing the cross-objection when the appeal was dismissed for default. Learned counsel submitted that when the appeal was subsequently restored the Sub Judge ought to have re-heard the cross-objection also along with the appeal and as that has not been done the defendant is seriously prejudiced. It is argued by him that when the appeal filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed for default was restored to file and heard again the cross objection also ought to have been heard again along with the appeal