ORDER :

The Civil Revision is directed against the order passed in I.A.No.2 of 2019 in A.S.No.66 of 2015, dated 02.12.2019 on the file of the Additional Sub Court, Tenkasi, allowing the petition filed under Section 151 CPC, to take the cross objections presented on 11.09.2015, on file.

2. The revision petitioner is the Appellant/plaintiff and she has filed the suit in O.S.No.562 of 2010, on the file of the Principal District Munsif Court, Tenkasi, against the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 herein and also against some other persons, for declaring that the suit property belongs to the plaintiff and for consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendants/ respondents 1 and 2 herein from in any manner interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property.

3. The learned District Munsif, Tenkasi, after trial, has passed the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2015, dismissing the suit with respect to the reliefs claimed by the plaintiff, but granted permanent injunction as alternative relief, restraining the respondents/defendants 1 and 2 from interfering with the plaintiff's peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit property except under due process of law. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of the suit with respect to the main reliefs, the plaintiff has preferred an appeal in A.S.No.66 of 2015 and the same is pending on the file of the Additional Subordinate Court, Tenkasi. Thereafter, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed cross objections on 11.09.2015, but admittedly, the same was not taken on file.

4. It is not in dispute that subsequently, the appeal in A.S.No.66 of 2015 was dismissed for default on 05.09.2016 and the same was restored to file as per the order passed in I.A.No.44 of 2019, dated 20.06.2019. When the hearing of the appeal was in progress, the respondents 1 and 2 have filed the above petition in I.A.No.2 of 2019, under Section 151 CPC, seeking orders to take the cross objections dated 11.09.2015 on file. The learned Appellate Judge, after enquiry, has passed the impugned order, dated 02.12.2019, allowing the said petition and thereby ordered to take the cross objections on the file of the said Court. Challenging the said order, the Appellant/plaintiff has come forward with the present revision.

5. It is necessary to refer Order 41 Rule 22 CPC :

“22.Upon hearing, respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal— (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellant Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.

Explanation—A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.”

6. A bare perusal of the above provision makes it clear and fixes the period of limitation as one month to be computed from the date of service of notice on the respondent, or his Pleader of notice of the hearing of the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit it to allow.

7. In the case on hand, admittedly, the respondents 1 and 2 have received the Court notices on 27.07.2015 and 28.07.2015 respectively. As per Order 41 Rule 22 CPC, the respondents ought to have filed the cross objections before 28.08.2015, but admittedly, they