1. The arguments advanced by Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners and Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the first respondent are heard. Though the second respondent was served with notice, he has not chosen to enter appearance to oppose this revision petition.

2. The first respondent herein filed the suit in O.S.No.222 of 2001 on the file of the District Munsif Court, Sankari for partition and separate possession and for injunction. The second respondent challenged the suit. The learned Trial Judge decreed the suit as prayed for and passed a preliminary decree for partition directing division of 38 cents from the rest of the suit properties with a further direction to put the plaintiff in possession of the same. The decree also restrained the defendants from interfering with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the Car Track shown as 'ABCD' in the rough plan attached to the plaint.

3. As against the decree of the Trial Court dated 28.9.2007, the second respondent herein, who figured as third defendant, filed an appeal on the file of the learned Subordinate Judge, Sankari in A.S.No.11 of 2008. The appeal is being contested by the first respondent herein/decree-holder (plaintiff). The revision petitioners, who have been arrayed as respondents 2 and 3 in the appeal, chose to prefer a Cross-Objection in the said appeal filed by the third defendant making a prayer similar to the one made by the appellant. The first respondent/decree-holder preferred application in I.A.No.52 of 2011 for the rejection of the cross-objection citing Order 41 Rule 22 and Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure as the provision under which the cross-objection was filed making a prayer similar to the one made by the appellant in A.S.No.11 of 2008 viz., the third defendant in the suit. The learned Subordinate Judge chose to number it as cross appeal assigning the number as Cross Appeal Suit No.39 of 2008. After the same was taken on file, the first respondent herein viz., the plaintiff in the original suit, filed application in I.A.No.52 of 2011 for rejection of the said cross appeal. The learned Subordinate Judge, after hearing, allowed the application and rejected the cross appeal preferred by the revision petitioners. As against the said order dated 26.7.2012 passed in I.A.No.52 of 2011, the present revision has been filed.

4. Mr.P.Valliappan, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submits that a co-respondent can prefer a cross objection challenging that part of the decree which is against him even though he could have filed an appeal against the same and that the learned Subordinate Judge, without properly appreciating the scope of liberty given under Order 41 Rule 22, chose to reject the cross appeal filed by the revision petitioners and that the said order of the learned Subordinate Judge should be set aside. It is the further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that though a wrong provision might have been stated as the provision under which the cross appeal has been filed, the learned appellate court could have very well returned the same pointing out the inappropriate provision quoted in the memorandum and giving an opportunity to the petitioners to correct the provision of law and re-present the memorandum of appeal as an independent appeal.

5. Mr.N.Manokaran, learned counsel for the first respondent submits that since the memorandum was said to be filed under Order 41 Rule 22, the nomenclature given to the same as "cross appeal" will be of no significance and in fact, the memorandum should be taken only as "cross-objection" and that the learned Subordinate Judge has not committed any error in holding that such a cross-objection, simply for supporting the case of the appellant, was not maintainable.

6. As an answer to the above said contention, the learned for the revision petitioners would submit that though, by inadvertence, Order 41 Rule 22 might have been mentioned in the title of t