Cross-objections are maintainable in appeals to the High Court from Tribunals despite lack of specific statutory provision.

1. "Whether cross - objections are maintainable in a case where an appeal has been preferred under an Act which does not specifically provide for the filing of cross - objection" is the main question which has arisen for decision in the two appeals - F.A.O. No.239 - D of 1964 and F.A.O. No.37 of 1971, which are being decided by this judgment.

2. The facts relating to F.A.O. No. 239 - D of 1964 in brief are that Kumari Lalita was run over by a D.T.U. bus on 6-12-1961 and received serious injuries. According to the doctors, she was permanently disabled. She filed a claim for Rs.1,00,000/- under S.110 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the Delhi Transport Undertaking. The Tribunal awarded a sum of Rs.12,000/- to her. The Delhi Transport Undertaking filed the present appeal against the award Kumari Lalita filed cross - objections and asked for enhancement of the compensation awarded by the Tribunal. During the course of arguments, Mr. R.L. Tandon, learned counsel for the appellant raised a contention that no cross - objections were maintainable. His submission was that the award of the Tribunal did not amount to a decree and the provisions of O.41 R.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure had not been specifically made applicable and so no cross - objections could be preferred. The award could not be treated as an order since it did not fall under the definition given in S.2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure. When this matter came up before one of us (V.D. Misra, J.). it was noticed that there was a conflict of decisions and it was decided to refer the following question for the decision of a larger Bench: -
"Whether cross - objections are maintainable in a case where an appeal has been preferred under S.110 - A of the Motor Vehicles Act against the award of the Claims / Tribunal?"

3. In F.A.O. No.37 of 1971 M/s. Banwari Lal and Sons (Pvt.) Ltd., filed an appeal against the award of the Arbitrator under S.8 of the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act, 1952 . The Union of India, who is the first respondent in this appeal, filed cross - objections. The appellant objected to the maintainability of the cross - object ions on the ground that the Act did not provide for the filing of the same. It was also contended that the principle underlying O.41 R.22 of the Code of Civil Procedure would not enable the respondent to file cross - objections. When the matter came up before one of us (M.R.A. Ansari, J.), it was noticed that there was a conflict of decisions and it was decided to refer the matter to a larger Bench.

4. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents, who have filed cross - objections, is that when an appeal lies to the High Court from the decision of a Tribunal the proceedings are governed by the practice and procedure of the High Court. The High Court is a Court of Record to which the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are applicable, and so the respondents can file cross - objections. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the appellants contends that the right of filing cross - objections is a substantive right which can be given by a statute only and is not a matter of procedure. Appeals from Tribunals lie to the High Court as persona designata, and in any case procedure of High Court gives no right of filing cross - objections. Reliance is also placed on an unreported Division Bench decision of Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench at Delhi) in Union of India v. Mauji Ram, F.A.O. No.85 - D of 1956 decided on 17-12-1965 (Punj).

5. The relevant provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act and the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act may be noticed.

6. S.110 to 111 - A were enacted by amendment in 1956 to the Motor Vehi