The main legal point established in the judgment is the need for a liberal construction of procedural laws, such as Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code and Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, to ensure the fair and expeditious dispensation of justice, especially in cases involving parties with limited understanding of legal matters.

JUDGMENT :

Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J.

The present application has been filed by the applicant/respondent/objector, Santokh Singh (now deceased, represented through legal representatives) (hereinafter referred to as =the objector') under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC read with Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in moving the cross-objections.

2. As per the objector, he has moved the cross-objections, which are barred by eleven years, eight months and seventeen days, but, in fact, the objections were filed within a year after fixing the date of hearing by this Hon'ble Court. It is further contended by the objector that he has preferred the cross-objections, in the present regular second appeal (RSA No. 457 of 2002), which is pending adjudication, against judgment dated 15.05.2002, passed by the learned District Judge, Hamirpur, in Civil Appeal No. 86 of 1994, whereby findings recorded by the learned Sub Judge, 1st Class (2), Hamirpur, in Civil suit No. 194/91, decided on 04.05.1994, were partly set-aside. As per the objector, the cross-objections have been filed within time, as no actual date notice of hearing was ever issued to him. As per Order 41, Rule 22 CPC, the Court has discretion to entertain the cross-objections, even after the expiry of thirty days. The objector was an old, illiterate and ailing person and he did not understand the intricacies of law. The objector further contends that he was never advised to file the cross-objections, till the last date of hearing, so the same could not be filed within thirty days from the date of admission. Even otherwise also, the period of thirty days, as per the provision of CPC would start from the date when actual date notice of hearing is issued by the Court. As per the objector, there are sufficient grounds for condoning the delay in filing the cross-objections and the same may kindly be condoned. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.

3. Reply to the application stands filed and it is averred therein that the regular second appeal was admitted on 08.10.2002. No objections were filed within the stipulated time of one month or extended period, therefore, the application deserves dismissal.

4. I have heard the learned Senior counsel for the parties and gone through the record in detail.

5. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the objector/respondent/applicant has argued that the matter was listed for the first time for hearing on 14.12.2012 and the period of one month is to be taken from 14.12.2012. Taking this into consideration, the cross-objections cannot be said to be too much time barred. He has further argued that even Under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC, the objector (respondent) has a right to argue and assail the judgment, as against him. He has prayed that the delay, in moving the cross-objections, may be condoned. To fortify his arguments, he has relied upon a judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex court in case titled as Mahadev Govind Gharge and others vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, (2011) 6 Supreme Court Cases 321.

6. Conversely, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/non-objector/non-applicant (hereinafter referred to as =the non-objector') has also relied upon the judgment (supra) referred by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the objector. He has argued that as the delay has not been sufficiently explained, the application for condonation of delay is required to be dismissed. He has further argued that the objector is taking contradictory pleas and first he should decide whether he want to pursue the present cross-objections under Order 41, Rule 22 CPC or want to argue the matter under Order 41, Rule 33 CPC. However, he has argued that the application deserves dismissal and may be dismissed.

7. Precisely, the grounds, which the objector has taken in the application, are that he is an old, illiterate and ailing person having no knowledge of