The deliberate delay in filing cross appeal and the lack of reasonable cause for the delay can lead to the dismissal of the application for time extension.

1. The appellants are before this court challenging the order of learned Appellate Court declining to extend the time to file cross appeal.

2. The suit in O.S.No.6703 of 2004 was filed by the petitioners against the respondents seeking permanent injunction. Another suit O.S.No.988 of 2005 was filed by the father of the respondents seeking mandatory injunction, for damages and permanent injunction. The suit filed by the petitioners herein was decreed and the suit filed by the respondents was dismissed. Therefore, the respondents filed appeal suits in A.S.Nos.136 and 137 of 2007. The petitioners took out an application seeking extension of time to file cross appeal under Order 41 Rule 22 and the said application was dismissed. The said order is challenged before this court.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would submit that the cross appeal filed by the petitioners have to be taken on file as the appeal has not been disposed of and as the points raised therein are required to be considered at the time of disposal of the appeal. Consequently he relied upon the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Mahadev Govind Charge & others vs. The Special and Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka reported in 2011(4) CTC 620 and particularly relying upon paragraphs 21, 22 and 57 of the judgement contended that Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC provides the court below to extend the time for filing cross objection/cross appeal. Therefore, the order of the trial court is liable to be set aside and the revision has to be allowed.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the petitioners raised only the legal points namely jurisdiction and court fees and the same are to be raised at the earliest point of time, whereas, the petitioners took their own sweet time and tried to file the petition to receive cross appeal only when the matter was posted for argument. He would further submit that even before the trial court, the same application was filed and was dismissed. Thereafter on revision, this court also confirmed the dismissal order. Therefore, the question of going into the said facts further again does not raise.

5. De hors of the legal points on merits, this court is bound to note that the party, who approached this court in 2004, still is unable to get the finality of the case and the said proceedings are dragged on at the lower appellate stage itself for the past seven years without disposal. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents, the appeal was numbered on 13.3.2007 and notice was served on the petitioners herein for the hearing on 13.4.2007. On 13.4.2007, vakalath was filed on behalf of the petitioners. As per Order 41 Rule 22, time limit for filing cross appeal is one month from the date of service of the notice or from the date of first hearing. In this case, the first hearing date was on 13.4.2007 and the time is deemed to have expired on 13.5.2007. In view of the intervention of the summer holidays, the matter was argued by the learned counsel for the respondents on 30.6.2008. Thereafter the matter has been adjourned only for argument on the side of the petitioners till 14.7.2008. Reply argument for the petitioners was heard on 15.7.2008. Thereafter, the respondents were heard on 16.7.2008 and the matter has been posted on 24.7.2008 for judgement. On 24.7.2008 the petitioners filed CMP.No.1184 of 2008 to reopen the case.

6. It is seen that the respondents fairly said no objection on 25.7.2008 and thereafter, the case was posted on 28.7.2008 for filing the xerox copy of the judgement. On 30.7.2008 there was no representation on the side of the petitioners inspite of the fact that the counsel for the respondents was present. Therefore, the matter was posted for judgement on 5.8.2008. On 5.8.2008 the matter was reopened and called for clarification on 20.8.2008 and 8.9.2008. The Original plaintiff