1 WP No.6297/10 mpt IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.6297 of 2010 Bipinkumar S. Talwar ... Petitioner versus Gajanan Balkrishna Raut & ors ... Respondents ... Mr. M.A.Dharmaraj for the petitioner. CORAM : D.G. KARNIK, J. DATED : 12th August 2010 P.C. 1. By this petition, petitioner challenges the order dated 8 April 2009 passed by the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court at Mumbai allowing the application of the respondent for additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the cross objections filed by the respondent. 2. In a suit for possession filed by respondent no.1, a decree for possession was passed against the original tenant. Petitioners are the legal representative of the original tenant. They filed an appeal before the appellate Bench of the Small Causes Court challenging the decree. In the appeal, respondent no.1 filed cross objections against refusal of a decree on some of the grounds pleaded in the original plaint. In the 2 WP No.6297/10 appeal, respondent no.1 gave an application for permission to file additional written statement under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The application was allowed. That order is impugned in the present petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that cross objections are not maintainable in view of the provisions of Order 51 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Since cross objections themselves are not maintainable, appellate court could not have allowed the application for additional evidence. 4. To hold at this stage that the application for additional evidence could not have been made that cross objections are not maintainable wold amount to deciding the maintainability of the cross objections itself. Cross objections have been filed and they are to be heard along with the appeal. In the circumstances, lower court committed no error in not taking any decision on the question of maintainability of cross objections at that stage. Writ Petition is accordingly rejected. 3. It is clarified that this order shall not amount to any adjudication of the contention as to the maintainability of the cross objections and the lower appellate court at the hearing of the appeal when the cross objections would be entitled/required to decide the objection regarding the maintainability of the cross objections. (D.G. KARNIK,J.)