The court's decision emphasized the interpretation of procedural rules, specifically Order XLI, rules 20 and 22, and the extent of the Appellate Court's powers in adding parties and allowing cross-objections.

Oldfield, J.

1. The only material facts are that plaintiff obtained a decree against 1st defendant and his sons, 3rd and 4th defendants for the amount of a debt incurred by the first mentioned. Third and 4th defendants appealed not making 2nd defendant, 1st defendants undivided nephew, a party. Plaintiff, however, here 1st respondent, filed a memo, of objection against him and statedly on account of that memo, had made him a party to the appeal in the lower Appellate Court, A degree was given by the lower Appellate Court against him: and he now appeals, the only ground of appeal argued being that, as he was not originally a party to the appeal, no memo could be filed to his prejudice.

2. The Full Bench decision in Munisamy Mudaly v. Albu Reddy 27 Ind. Cas. 323 : 38 M. 705 : (1915) M.W.N. 45 : 27 M.L.J. 740 has placed beyond doubt the right of one respondent to proceed against another by memo of objection and the only question, therefore, is whether the one is entitled to have the other made a party in order that he may do so. Appellant argued that he is not, because the only provision in Order XLI relating to appeal?, rule 20, for the addition of parties refers to "the appeal" and "the result of the appeal," not also to the memo of objection, and cannot be utilised for the purpose of the latter. Contra it is argued that "the appeal" is referred to in Order XLI, rule 20, as meaning and including all the proceedings in the Appellate Court, whether those involved in the disposal of the appeal proper or also those involved by the memo. The latter construction commends itself as consistent with the reference to the appeal in rules 21, 23, 24, 25, 27,30, 33, unaccompanied by anything explicitly rendering them applicable to a memorandum of objection or by any other separate provision for the procedure at the hearing of the latter. In these circumstances, the appellants argument must be rejected. The appeal is dismissed with costs.

Krishsan, J.

3. In this case the lower Appellate Court allowed the plaintiff, who was originally the sole respondent in the appeal to that Court by defendants Nos. 3 and 4, to file a memo, of cross-objection to the decree of the first Court under Order XLI, rule 22, Civil Procedure Code, against the 2nd defendant who had not been made party to the appeal by appellants, and for the purpose of disposing of that memo, added the 2nd defendant as the 2nd respondent to the appeal, under rule 20, on the application of the plaintiff. That Court, finding the claim of the plaintiff established against the 2nd respondent also, allowed the memo of cross-objection and varied the decree of the first Court and gave a decree to the plaintiff against him as well.

4. No objection is raised on the merits to that decree, but it is contended that the procedure adopted is unauthorised by the rules and is ultra vires and that plaintiffs only proper remedy was to appeal against the decree of the 1st Court himself so far as it dismissed his suit against the 2nd defendant. It must be conceded in the appellants favour that the 2nd defendant was not a necessary party to the appeal so far as the appeal of the appellants was concerned. The appellants Vakil contends that rule 22 doss not permit a respondent in an appeal to file cross-objections against any person who is not made a party to the appeal by the appellant and who, not being a necessary party for the purposes of the appeal, need not have been added by him as a respondent. It is, however, conceded by the learned Vakil that the somewhat narrow view taken of the scope of rule 22 in Jadunandan Prosad Singha v. Koer Kallyan Singh 13 Ind. Cas. 653 : 15 C.L.J. 61 : 16 C.W.N. 612, which is followed in Shib Chandra v. Dulcken 43 Ind. Cas. 78 : 28 C.L.J. 123, has not been adopted by our High Court. It has been ruled here by a Full Bench in Munisamy Mudaly v. Abbu Reddy 27 Ind. Cas. 323 : 38 M. 705 : (1915) M.W.N. 45 : 27 M.L.J. 740 that it was open to a respondent under rule 22 to f