RSA No.2529 of 1982 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2529 of 1982 Date of Decision: 19.3.2010 Akalgarh Gurdwara and others ...Appellants Versus Maulana Saeed-U-Rehman and others .....Respondents 1. Whether Reporter of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment- Yes. 2.To be referred to the Reporters or not- Yes. 3. Whether judgment should be reported in the digest-Yes. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh Present: Mr. M.L. Saggar, Sr. Advocate with Mr. G.S. Brar, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. M.L. Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Seema Jagpal, Advocate for the respondent. Mr. Arun Palli, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Jai Bhagwan, Advocate for respondent-Punjab Wakf Board. ..... Alok Singh, J. (Oral) 1. This second appeal is filed by the defendant-appellant assailing judgment and decree dated 2.9.1982 passed by First Appellate Court/ADJ, Ludhiana, thereby allowing the appeal of the plaintiff and rejecting the cross-objections filed by the defendants, being time barred. 2. Brief facts of the present case are that earlier plaintiff had filed suit for possession; plaintiff was permitted to withdraw previous suit with liberty to file fresh on payment of special cost of Rs.25/-; RSA No.2529 of 1982 2 thereafter, plaintiff filed present suit for possession without making payment of cost which was a condition precedent to withdraw the previous suit with liberty to file fresh suit; learned trial Court dismissed the suit of the plaintiff on the ground that the present suit was not maintainable since plaintiff did not pay the cost which was a condition precedent to file fresh suit. However, learned trial Court has recorded findings on other issues in favour of plaintiff and against the defendants. 3. Plaintiff, feeling aggrieved from the judgment of the trial Court dismissing his suit, approached the first appellate Court. First appeal was transferred, heard and decided by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 2.9.1982. First Appellate Court accepted Rs.25/- as cost during the course of first appeal and thereafter held that suit of the plaintiff is maintainable. First Appellate Court did not touch findings of the trial Court on the other issues on the hypertechnical ground that cross-objection filed by the defendants were time barred. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 5. The substantial question of law involved in the present appeal is:- As to whether cross-objection filed by the defendant before the First Appellate Court was time barred? 6. Undisputedly respondent No.2 therein was served with the summon on 16.4.1981 and cross-objection were filed by the respondents on 7.5.1981. Cross objections seems to have been filed within 30 days from the date of service of summon. However, learned First Appellate Court, in the impugned judgment, has held that respondent No.1 was served earlier to the respondent No.2, hence RSA No.2529 of 1982 3 limitation to file cross-objection would begin from the date of the service of summons to the respondent No.1. Respondent No.1/defendant No.1 Gurdwara was sued through its President. Respondent No.2/defendant No.2 was President of Gurdwara in person. Once notice of appeal was served on Respondent No.2 i.e. President of Gurdwara on 16.4.1981 hence cross objections filed by Respondent No.1,2 and 3 on 7.5.1981 cannot be said to be beyond limitation of 30 days. In the matter like present limitation would begin from the date of service on the office bearer. Substantial question of law is answered accordingly. 7. In view of above appeal deserves to be allowed. Present second appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside. First Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal along with cross objections afresh in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the First Appellate Court on 21.4.2010. First Appellate Court shall expedite disposal of the appeal. (ALOK SINGH) JUDGE 19.3.2010 sharmila