1. This appeal was presented on 26th March, 1917. The Registrar directed that the appeal should be admitted and that the usual notices should issue. On 11th June, 1917 a cross-objection in the matter of costs was filed. Thereafter the appellant was required to give security for the costs of this appeal. The order relating to the providing of security was passed in the presence of the parties first by the Registrar and then by Jwala Prasad, J. An appeal against the order of Jwala Prasad, J. was dismissed on 19th December, 1917. Thereafter on 8th January, 1918 we directed that the appellant having been given sufficient time to provide security for the costs of the appeal and having failed to do so within a reasonable time, the appeal should be dismissed with costs. The respondent then moved the Registrar for an order in respect of his cross-objection which he desires to press, and the matter now comes before us. It has been contended that the provision of law which applies to this case is sub-R. (4) R. 22, O. 41 of the CPC. That sub-rule provides that:
“Where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit.”
2. On behalf of the appellant it is contended that the order directing the dismissal of the appeal was not an order of dismissal for default, and he refers us to the rule which deals with the matter requiring security for costs from an appellant where it is laid down that upon failure to provide security for costs of appeal the appeal shall be rejected. The learned vakil for the appellant contends that in the present case the appeal was rejected and not dismissed for default; and that therefore sub-R. (4) to which I have referred above does not apply. We are of opinion however that the word “reject” is used in the rule dealing with the providing of security for costs because that rule enables the Court to reject an appeal on its presentation on failure to give security for costs and before the respondent appears.
3. We are of opinion that in a case such as the present where the respondent has appeared and where the parties have entered into contest on several occasions before the Court and the appeal is dismissed upon failure on the part of the appellant to provide security that such a dismissal is a dismissal for default. In these circumstances we are of opinion that sub-R. (4) is applicable and that the respondent is entitled to have his cross-objections disposed of in a proper way. As the cross-objection relates only to the question of costs we hold that it will not be necessary to prepare a paper-book. We direct therefore that the cross-objection be brought to a hearing.
V.S/R.K
4. Order accordingly.