JUDGMENT

1. These are defendants cross-objections filed presumably under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P.C. It appears that the plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of landed property and for mesne profits. In the plaint the plaintiffs impugned the mortgage deed, the decree passed on the basis of the mortgage deed and the sale which took place in pursuance of the decree. The valuation for purposes of court-fee and jurisdiction was fixed at a certain calculation. The contesting defendant 1 raised an objection that the valuation of the suit was not correctly fixed and the court-fee paid was not sufficient. The trial Court framed two issues upon these points and ordered the plaintiffs to pay the deficit court-fee of Rs. 582-8-0 by a certain date after which the issues arising in the case would be framed.

2. The plaintiffs were dissatisfied with the order for payment of court-fee and filed an appeal under Section 6A(1), Court-fees Act. Defendant 1 was also dissatisfied with the order of the lower Court, as according to him the plaintiffs should have been directed to pay a higher amount of court-fee and filed cross-objections to the appeal. By an order dated 1st September 1941, the appeal was dismissed on the appellants counsel stating that his clients had taken no action on the order of the Court calling upon them to deposit the estimated costs for preparation of the typed copies and that the appeal might be dismissed. No order was passed in respect of the cross-objections at that time. The matter has been put up before us now for hearing of the cross-objections.

3. We are of opinion that the cross-objections are not maintainable and must be dismissed. The first part of Section 6A(1), Court-fees Act, lays down that any person called upon to make good a deficiency in court-fee may appeal against such order as if it were an order appealable under Section 104, Civil P.C. It is perfectly clear that defendant 1 was not entitled to file any appeal against the order of the lower Court under the provisions of this section, as he was not a person who had been called upon to make good a deficiency in court-fee. It is admitted that the cross-objections are filed under the provisions of Order 41, Rule 22, Civil P.C. Rule 22 lays down:

Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, but take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the appellate 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.

4. It is clear from the rule quoted above that a cross-objection can be filed only by a person who is entitled under the law to file an appeal. If he does not file an appeal it is open to him under the provisions of Rule 22 to object to the order of the lower Court by way of cross-objections within one month from the date of the service on him or his pleader of notice of the date fixed for hearing the appeal filed by the aggrieved party. Where the law confers no right upon a party to file an appeal, it follows that he is precluded from filing cross-objections to the appeal. Learned Counsel for the cross-objector has failed to point any provisions of the law under which he is entitled to maintain the cross-objections. We hold, therefore, that the cross-objections are not competent and dismiss them with costs.