By the Court.—The present appeal has raised an issue of importance namely, as to whether an appeal filed under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Rules Act, 1988 before the High Court read with Rule 222 of the U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998, confers any right on the respondents in the appeal to file a Cross Objection as envisaged in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the C.P.C., or not.

2. To appreciate the controversy and the objection raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the Insurance Company to the said effect, we had passed an order on 14.11.2017 directing the matter to come up on the next day. The matter was heard by us on 15.11.2017 when we passed the following order :

The matter had been heard by us yesterday and the case was adjourned on the request of Sri Manish Goyal, learned counsel for the respondent. The order passed on 14.11.2017 is extracted hereinunder:

“Heard Sri Vinay Khare, learned counsel for the appellant has advanced his submissions contending that the right of appeal as conferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act does not envisage the right of filing of a cross objection by the respondent in the appeal. He submits that the right of a cross objection as understood Order 41 Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code is at par with a substantive right of appeal and unless the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 or the Rules framed thereunder create any such right for the filing of a cross objection, a cross objection would not be maintainable for which heavy reliance has been placed on the Full Bench of the Himanchal Pradesh High Court in the case of Lata v. United Indian Insurance Company Ltd and others, 2005 (2) TAC 902.

He has further invited the attention of the Court to the judgments of the Apex Court in a matter arising out of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 where according to him a similar argument had been advanced which was repelled after considering the provisions of Section 41 of the 1940 Act holding that a cross objection as contemplated under Order 41 Rule 22 would not be maintainable unless a right exists for which he has invited the attention of the Court to paragraph 25 of the said judgment.

It is therefore, urged that applying the said ratio and the principles and keeping in view the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicle Rules, 1988 particularly Rule 221 and Rule 222 thereof, read with Section 173 and Section 169 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, no such provision has been made for in order to enable the respondent to file a cross objection in an appeal filed under Section 173. The argument, therefore, is that the cross objection filed in the present case would not be maintainable.

There is one more aspect which also requires to be answered which in our opinion has to be dealt with namely that the right to file an appeal is subject to the limitation prescribed under the Act against an award. The appeal has to be filed within 90 days. There can be a case where a party who may be intending to raise objections against any of the findings does not file an appeal within 90 days but comes up with a cross objection in a time barred appeal filed by another aggrieved party. The appeal can be filed with a prayer for condoning delay even beyond 90 days which can be entertained and the period even extend to years together. In such an event, if a respondent in the appeal comes up with a cross objection where according to the statutory provision a cross objection can be filed within 30 days of the service of notice of the appeal, but as urged if the right of cross objection is not available, and an appeal has not been filed within 90 days, then by prescription an appeal of such a person would be barred by limitation, but on the other hand he will have a right to file a cross objection in a time barred appeal. This anomaly, therefore, also deserves to be considered, while taking into account the right of a aggrieved person to file a cross objection.

Sri Manish Goyal appearing for the resp