Cross Appeals and Cross Objections in Indian Civil Procedure

An Analytical Examination of Cross Appeals and Cross Objections under the Indian Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Introduction

The appellate process in the Indian civil justice system provides mechanisms not only for the appellant to challenge a decree but also for the respondent to voice grievances against it. Two primary avenues available to a respondent are filing a cross appeal or lodging cross objections. These procedural tools, primarily governed by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), aim to ensure comprehensive adjudication of disputes at the appellate stage, allowing the court to do complete justice between the parties. This article undertakes a detailed analysis of the concepts of cross appeals and cross objections, drawing upon statutory provisions and judicial pronouncements, particularly those provided in the reference materials.

Conceptual Framework: Cross Appeal and Cross Objection

When a decree is passed, a party aggrieved by it may prefer an appeal. However, the respondent in such an appeal may also be aggrieved by certain findings or parts of the decree. The respondent has distinct remedies to address such grievances.

Cross Appeal

A cross appeal is essentially an independent appeal filed by a respondent who is aggrieved by a part of the decree that has been appealed against by the other party. It is a substantive right exercised by the respondent to challenge aspects of the lower court's decree that are unfavorable to them. As observed in Dheeraj Singh v. Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (Supreme Court Of India, 2023), "where the other party in the first instance has preferred an appeal, apart from the remedy of cross objections, the respondent can also file a cross appeal within the limitation period so prescribed, which in essence is a separate appeal in itself, challenging part or whole of the original decree, independent of the appeal filed by the other party." This underscores that a cross appeal stands on its own footing, subject to the usual requirements of an appeal, including limitation.

Cross Objection (Order 41 Rule 22, CPC)

Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC provides for the mechanism of cross objections. This rule enables a respondent, who may not have appealed from any part of the decree, to not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against them in the court below but also to take any cross objection to the decree which they could have taken by way of appeal. The Supreme Court in Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Manohar And Others (Supreme Court Of India, 2005) elucidated the nature of cross objections: "Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree or order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order.”

This sentiment is echoed in Hussain Begum And Others v. Madu Ranga Rao And Others (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 1999) and National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. RAJ KUMARI AND ORS (Jammu and Kashmir High Court, 2018). The latter case clarified that Rule 10 of Order XLI-A (J&K) (similar to Order 41 Rule 22 CPC) "does not confer any new right on the respondent but only affords him a fresh opportunity to exercise the very same right which he had either under the Civil P. C. or under the special statute."

Crucially, as stated in Dheeraj Singh (2023), "cross objections have all the trappings of a regular appeal, and therefore, must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same." This implies that cross objections are treated with the same seriousness and are subject to similar procedural considerations as an appeal.

Distinguishing Cross Appeals and Cross Objections

While both serve the purpose of allowing a respondent to challenge an adverse part of a decree, there are distinctions. A cross appeal is an independent appeal, filed separately, and governed by its own limitation period. A cross objection, on the other hand, is filed within an existing appeal preferred by the appellant. The time limit for filing cross objections, as per Order 41 Rule 22(1), is one month from the date of service of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow (Hari Shankar Rastogi, 2005; Carlton Fortes AND ANR., Bombay High Court, 2020).

The right to file a cross objection is contingent upon an appeal being filed by the other side. However, once filed, a cross objection can be heard and determined even if the original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default (Hari Shankar Rastogi, 2005; Hussain Begum, 1999).

Scope and Powers of the Appellate Court

Hearing Cross Objections

The appellate court is duty-bound to consider and dispose of cross objections on merits, treating them as an appeal. In Dheeraj Singh (2023), the Supreme Court noted the appellant's claim that his cross objection was not considered by the High Court and reiterated that cross objections "must be considered in full by the court adjudicating upon the same." Similarly, the Rajasthan High Court in Diwan Chand v. Chandar Singh (1987) emphasized that it was the duty of the appellate court to pass necessary orders on cross objections when pressed.

Supporting Decree on Grounds Negatived by Lower Court

Order 41 Rule 22(1) also permits a respondent, without filing cross objections, to support the decree on any grounds decided against them in the court below. This means if the ultimate decree is in the respondent's favour, they can argue that findings on certain issues which went against them were erroneous and that the decree should be upheld for other reasons. The Supreme Court in Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel v. Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji And Others (1965 AIR SC 669) affirmed this principle. It was also noted in Choudhary Sahu (Dead) By Lrs. v. State Of Bihar (1982 SCC 1 232) and Hari Shankar Rastogi (2005).

Challenging/Modifying Decree: Necessity of Cross Objection or Cross Appeal

If a respondent wishes not merely to support the decree but to challenge a part of it or seek its modification, they must file a cross appeal or cross objection. The Supreme Court in Banarsi And Others v. Ram Phal (2003 SCC 9 606) held that an appellate court could not modify a decree in favour of a respondent who had not filed an appeal or cross objection against a distinct and separable part of the decree that was adverse to them. The Court observed that "Only parties adversely affected by a decree are entitled to appeal or file cross-objections." This principle was also evident in Randhir Sharma v. Uma Devi (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2010), which discussed Banarsi.

The Ambit of Order 41 Rule 33, CPC

Order 41 Rule 33 CPC confers wide discretionary powers upon the appellate court to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may require. This power can be exercised in favour of all or any of the respondents or parties, even though such respondents or parties may not have filed any appeal or objection. However, this power is discretionary and is to be exercised judiciously.

In Banarsi And Others v. Ram Phal (2003), the Supreme Court, while acknowledging the wide sweep of Rule 33, cautioned that it is "not a panacea for all ills" and should not be used to grant relief to a respondent who has consciously chosen not to appeal or file cross objections against a specific adverse finding that is separable from the part of the decree appealed against. The Court referred to Panna Lal v. State of Bombay (1964) and Rameshwar Prasad v. Shambehari Lal Jagannath (1964) regarding the breadth of this rule, but also to Nirmala Bala Ghose v. Balai Chand Ghose (1965) on its limitations.

The Supreme Court in Choudhary Sahu (1982) also emphasized that Rule 33 should not be used to override final decrees merely because of disagreement, especially when the non-appealing party has not sought relief. In S. Nazeer Ahmed v. State Bank Of Mysore And Others (2007 SCC 11 75), the Supreme Court criticized the High Court's reliance on Order 41 Rule 33 as unnecessary in the context of that case. However, in Mahant Dhangir And Another v. Madan Mohan And Others (1987 SCC SUPP 1 528), the Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not exercising its discretion under Rule 33 to consider objections, suggesting that Rules 22 and 33 can be complementary, with Rule 33 serving to ensure justice, especially in multi-party disputes where co-respondents' rights are implicated.

Procedural Aspects of Cross Objections

  • Limitation: As per Order 41 Rule 22(1), cross objections must be filed within one month from the date of service on the respondent or their pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may deem fit to allow (Hari Shankar Rastogi, 2005; Hussain Begum, 1999).
  • Court Fees: Court fee is payable on cross objections as on a memorandum of appeal (Hussain Begum, 1999).
  • Indigent Persons: Provisions relating to appeals by indigent persons (Order 44 CPC) also apply to cross objections (Hari Shankar Rastogi, 2005; Hussain Begum, 1999).
  • Effect of Withdrawal or Dismissal of Main Appeal: Order 41 Rule 22(4) explicitly states that where an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, a cross objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. This underscores the independent character of cross objections once filed (Hari Shankar Rastogi, 2005).
  • Abatement and Substitution of Legal Representatives: The principles regarding abatement and substitution of legal representatives (Order 22 CPC) apply to cross objections. In N. Jayaram Reddy And Another v. Revenue Divisional Officer And Land Acquisition Officer, Kurnool (1979 SCC 3 578), the Supreme Court discussed the interdependence of cross appeals and cross objections, suggesting that impleadment of legal representatives in one might suffice for the other. This view is supported by cases like Mohammed Ali v. Valsalakumari (Kerala High Court, 1987), Raman Wasan v. Jatender Nath Sharma (Himachal Pradesh High Court, 2012), and Bathini Rajalingam And Anr. v. Nandala Rajesham And Ors. (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2005), which emphasize substance over form in such matters.

Cross Objections in Specific Statutory Contexts

The principles governing cross objections under the CPC are generally applicable, but specific statutes may have their own nuances.

  • Arbitration Act, 1940: In Superintending Engineer And Others v. B. Subba Reddy (1999 SCC 4 423), the Supreme Court held that cross objections under Section 39 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, were procedural and did not confer substantive rights akin to an appeal unless explicitly provided. Section 41 of that Act made CPC applicable to proceedings before the Court, but Section 39 limited the right of appeal.
  • Letters Patent Appeals: The Madhya Pradesh High Court in Jabalpur Development Authority v. Y.S Sachan And Others (2004) observed that there is no concept of filing cross objections in a Letters Patent Appeal under its rules, though a respondent can support the judgment on grounds negatived, citing Ramanbhai Ashabhai Patel.
  • Motor Vehicles Act, 1988: In Branch Manager, New India Assurance Co. Ltd. v. Are Ramulu (Andhra Pradesh High Court, 2006), it was contended that if an appeal by an insurer is not maintainable (e.g., for want of permission under Section 170 of the MV Act), the cross objections filed therein may also not be maintainable. The case of MUNICIPAL COMMISSIONER v. LEGAL HEIRS OF JIGAR ARVINDKUMAR NAYAK (Gujarat High Court, 2024) also involved cross-objections in a motor accident claim.

Judicial Interpretation and Key Precedents Summarized

The judiciary has consistently interpreted the provisions relating to cross appeals and cross objections to foster complete justice. Banarsi And Others v. Ram Phal (2003) and Choudhary Sahu (1982) are landmark rulings that circumscribe the appellate court's power to grant relief to a non-appealing/non-objecting respondent concerning distinct and separable parts of a decree, thereby emphasizing the need for parties to actively pursue their remedies. Conversely, Hari Shankar Rastogi (2005) and Dheeraj Singh (2023) firmly establish that a cross objection is tantamount to an appeal and must be adjudicated on its merits, even if the main appeal falters. Mahant Dhangir (1987) provides valuable insight into the harmonious construction of Order 41 Rule 22 and Rule 33, allowing for judicial flexibility, particularly in complex cases involving multiple parties. The case of Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab And Another (1921 AIR PC 6) primarily dealt with will construction and costs, and does not directly bear on the procedural aspects of cross appeals or objections, though it illustrates the complexities that can arise in appellate litigation. The cases of State Of Kerala v. K.M Charia Abdulla And Company (1965 AIR SC 0 1585) concerning revisional jurisdiction under Sales Tax law, and Allen Berry And Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Union Of India (1971 SCC 1 295) on arbitration awards, while touching upon appellate/revisional powers, are not central to the specific mechanics of cross objections under CPC. Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State Of Tripura And Others (1999 SCC 1 472) mentioned cross-objections being filed in a service matter, but the core issue was the civil court's jurisdiction.

Conclusion

Cross appeals and cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC are vital components of the appellate framework in India. They provide an essential opportunity for respondents to challenge adverse findings or parts of a decree without necessarily initiating a separate appeal from the outset, especially when they might have otherwise accepted the decree. The judiciary has consistently treated cross objections as substantive proceedings, akin to appeals, ensuring they are heard on merits. While Order 41 Rule 33 grants appellate courts extensive powers to do complete justice, its application in favour of a non-objecting respondent is exercised with caution, particularly where the respondent has consciously abstained from challenging a distinct part of the decree. These procedures collectively ensure that appellate courts are well-equipped to thoroughly examine all facets of a dispute and render a just and comprehensive decision, thereby reinforcing the principles of fairness and equity in the Indian legal system.