ORDER

With the consent of parties heard finally.

The petitioner has preferred present revision petition under Section 115 of CPC, 1908 being aggrieved with order dated 26/09/2019 passed by 19th Additional District Judge, Jabalpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 133/2017, whereby learned First Appellate Court dismissed the application filed under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner; whereas allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 for dismissal of cross objection filed by the petitioner.

Brief facts of the case are that the respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff filed a suit for eviction and arrears of rent against the petitioner. Petitioner/defendant No.2 filed the written statement as well as counter claim before the trial Court. The trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 21/08/2017 dismissed the suit filed by the plaintiff as well as the counter claim filed by the petitioner. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment, respondent Nos. 1 and 2/plaintiff filed a RCA No. 133/2017 before District Judge, Jabalpur and petitioner filed a cross- objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC alongwith application under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation act for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objection. Thereafter, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 also filed an application for dismissal of cross-objection filed by the petitioner under Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC on the ground of limitation. The first Appellate Court, vide order dated 26/09/2019, dismissed the cross objection filed by the petitioner on the ground that day to day delay has not been explained and reason assigned by the petitioner for delay in filing the cross objection is not sufficient. Being dissatisfied with the impugned order, the petitioner has preferred the present petition before this Court.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as per the provision contained in Order 41 Rule 22 of CPC regarding filing of cross-objection within 30 days is not mandatory, it is of directive nature. The provision provides that "respondent may file the cross objection before the appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader or within such further time as the Appellate Court see fit to allow." The provision contained in Order 41 Rule 22 CPC reads as under:- 22. Upon hearing, respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal-(1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree 29 [ but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also 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 and 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.

[ Explanation-A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent.]

(2) Form of objection and provisions applicable thereto-Such cross- objection shall be in the form of a memorandum, and the provisions of rule 1, so far as they relate to the form contents of the memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto.

31[*** ]

(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 other parties as the Court t