JUDGMENT :- Budhan and Ramji Lal executed an agreement to sell the property in dispute in favour of Ved Prakash son of Harbans Lal on 13-9-55. On 1-3-62 Suit No. 65 of 1962 was filed by Ved Prakash for specific performance of the contract of sale. It was stated by him that the aforesaid two persons had agreed to sell the plots in dispute for a sum of Rs. 200/- and that a sum of Rs. 50/- was advanced as earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed after they had won the case that was pending in the Hon'ble High Court. The case was won of 27-11-61. It was also alleged that the aforesaid defendants had subsequently entered into some agreement with Sri Ram Kar Prasad and Narendra Kumar who were arrayed as defendants 3 and 4. Ramji Lal who was defendant No. 1 admitted the plaint allegations. Budhan who was defendant No. 2 denied the execution of the agreement and stated that the sum of Rs. 50/- was borrowed from Harbans Lal and he never entered into any agreement to sell the property in dispute.

2. Another suit No. 89 of 1962 was filed by Harbans Lal on 27-3-62 for specific performance of the contract in his favour with the allegation that the contract was entered by him and the name of his son Ved Prakash was got entered under the advice of some legal experts.

3. The two suits were consolidated and suit No. 89 of 1962 was treated as the leading suit. The trial Court held that the agreement of sale was entered into between Budhan and Ramji Lal on the one hand and Harbans Lal on the other hand. Suit No. 65 of 1962 filed by Ved Prakash was consequently dismissed whereas suit No. 89 of 1962 filed by Harbans Lal was decreed. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial Court Ved Prakash filed Civil Appeal No. 41 of 1964. Budhan also filed an appeal against the decree and this appeal was numbered as Appeal No. 58 of 1964. Both the appeals were dismissed by the lower appellate Court on 14-4-64. Second Civil Appeal No. 4044 of 1965 was then filed in this Court by Budhan against the decree for specific performance passed in favour of Harbans Lal. No appeal was filed by Ved Prakash. A Cross Objection has been filed by Ved Prakash in the appeal of Budhan. Budhan compromised with plaintiff respondent Harbans Lal and his appeal was thereafter dismissed on the basis of the compromise. The cross objection filed by Ved Prakash has come up for hearing. A preliminary objection has been raised by the appellant and by the counsel for the respondent Harbans Lal about the maintainability of the cross objection. Their contention is that the suit for specific performance filed by Ved Prakash having been dismissed and an appeal too being dismissed it is not open to Ved Prakash to challenge by a Cross Objection the decree obtained by Harbans Lal in suit No. 89 of 1962. To be more specific the contention is that the remedy available to Ved Prakash was to file a Second Civil Appeal against the judgment and decree of the lower appellate Court dismissing his suit. It is further contended that Budhan had denied the agreement and his appeal was confined against the finding that there had been a genuine agreement executed by him. A Cross Objection by Ved Prakash that the decree for specific performance should be passed in his favour instead of Harbans Lal is not maintainable specially when the said relief could not be granted in the suit and the suit of Ved Prakash stands dismissed.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant on the other hand has contended that the Cross Objection can be filed against the interest of the appellant as well as against the interest of the co-respondent. According to him the language of Order 41, Rule 22, C.P.C. does not exclude the filing of the Cross Objection against a co-respondent. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length. Order 41, Rule 22 authorises a respondent to file an objection from any part of the decree in respect of matters which he could have taken by way of appeal. The Cross Objections