( 1 ) THIS appeal is filed under S. 173 of M. V. Act, 1988. A preliminary objection is raised by Shri B. N. Malhotra, counsel for respondent No. 4 that the appeal is incompetent and cannot be entertained as the appellant with the appeal did not deposit the half of the awarded amount. The award being for Rs. 50,000/ -.

( 2 ) ON the other hand, the appellant submits that he wants to 'withdraw' the appeal, and therefore, prays that the appeal be allowed to be 'withdrawn'.

( 3 ) THE claimants' counsel Shri J. P. Shrivastava appearing for respondents 1 and 2 submits that since the respondents have filed cross-objections in the appeal, therefore, even if the appeal is allowed to be withdrawn, the cross-objections are still required to be heard and determined. The contention of Shri Shrivastava is based on the provisions of sub-rule (4) of R. 22 of O. 41, C. P. C. , which provides that -"rule 22 - (1) to (3) xxx xxx xxx (4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the