IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

XOBJS-3-C-2014 (O&M)

Satish Kumar Saini ...Appellant(s)

Vs.

Laxmi Devi and others ...Respondent(s)

The date when the judgment is reserved: 10.12.2025 The date when the judgment is pronounced: 17.12.2025 The date when the judgment is uploaded on the 17.12.2025

website:

Whether only operative part of the judgment is Full

pronounced or whether the full judgment is judgment

pronounced:

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Santosh Sharma and Mr. Varun Sandhu,

Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. D.V. Sharma, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

CM-12808-C-2016

Prayer in the present application filed by the respondents

under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is for treating

Cross Objection No.3/C of 2014 as Regular Second Appeal.

2. Ld. Senior Counsel for the applicants/ respondents/defendants refers to a judgment of Bombay High Court in

Damodhar Namdeo Sase v. Namdeo Baburao Sase, (Bombay) : Law Finder Doc Id # 195618; wherein it is held as under:-

“A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 41, Rule 33 - Appellant Court - Power under Rule 33 is discretionary - No rigid rule in this behalf can be laid down and it would depend upon fact of each case - Non-filing of cross-objections will not deter the Appellate Court from considering merits in respect of such a finding - Held, that the cross-appeal or cross objection is a procedural formality - Powers of Appellate Court are not circumscribed by the procedural requirement.”

3. Learned Senior Counsel for the defendants further refers to judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Banarsi v. Ram Phal, (SC) :

Law Finder Doc Id # 560; wherein it is held as under:-

“A. Civil Procedure Code, Order 41 Rules 22 and 23 - Cross objections - Cross appeal - Scope of - Just as an appeal is preferred by one who can be said to be aggrieved by the decree so also a cross objection is preferred by one who can be said to be aggrieved by the decree - A party who has fully succeeded in the suit can and needs to neither prefer an appeal nor take any cross-objection though certain findings may be against him - Appeal and cross-objection, both are filed against decree and not against judgment and certainly not against any finding recorded in a judgment.”

4. It is accordingly submitted that cross-objections/Regular Second Appeal filed by the respondents is very much maintainable.

5. Heard.

6. For the legal position and reasons noted above, the present application is allowed and the Cross Objection No.3/C of 2014 is treated as Regular Second Appeal.

CM-12809-C-2016 Prayer in the present application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is for condonation of 848 days delay in filing the appeal.

2. It is submitted by learned Senior Counsel for the applicant/respondents that the said delay in filing the Second Appeal has been occasioned on account of the fact that the applicants, under misapprehension and lack of clear advice, have initially filed Cross Objection No.3/C of 2014 before this Court. Accordingly, delay of 848 days has occurred in filing the Appeal.

3. Heard.

4. For the reasons mentioned in the application, which is duly supported by an Affidavit of applicant/respondent No.2, the same is allowed; and the delay of 848 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

CM-12626-C-2014 This is an application filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order 41 Rule 27 read with Section 151 of CPC for placing on record judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi District Gurgaon as Annexure A-2.

2. Heard.

3. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and judgment dated 04.04.2014 passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Pataudi District Gurgaon is taken on record as Annexure A-2, subject to all just exceptions. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

RSA-3199-2013 (O&M)

Present Second Appeal has been f