RSA No.2867 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RSA No.2867 of 2009 Date of Decision: 12.01.2010. Smt. Banto .……Appellant Versus Baldev Singh and others ……Respondents Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Arun Nehra, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. R. S. Mittal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Atul Gaur, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. None for respondent Nos.1 and 5. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) This is regular second appeal by Smt. Banto defendant No.1(III) assailing judgment and decree dated 08.06.2009 passed by learned District Judge, Fatehabad whereby cross-objections preferred by appellant herein in first appeal preferred by plaintiff- respondent No.5 Sukhdev Singh were dismissed as time barred. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. Since the objections preferred by the appellant were dismissed as time barred by the lower Appellate Court, I need not go into the merits of the claim of rival parties. Suffice to observe that suit filed by plaintiff-respondent No.5 was dismissed by trial Court vide judgment and decree dated 06.08.2008. Respondent No.5 preferred first appeal against the said judgment and decree before learned District Judge, Fatehabad. Appellant herein, who was RSA No.2867 of 2009 -2- respondent No.1 (III) in the said civil appeal, preferred cross- objections under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, C.P.C). Learned lower Appellate Court has dismissed the cross-objections as time barred. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the learned lower Appellate Court took into consideration the limitation period of 30 days from the date of judgment and decree of the trial Court and held the cross-objections to be time barred under Article 116(b) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act, 1963, cross- objections having been preferred beyond the period of 30 days from the judgment and decree of the trial Court. It is contended that Article 116(b) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act is applicable to filing of the appeal and not to filing of the cross-objections. It is pointed out that under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C, cross-objections may be preferred within one month from the date of service on the cross- objector of notice of the hearing of the appeal and in the instant case, the notice of the appeal was served on the cross-objector (appellant herein) on 07.10.2008 as per annexed report of Process Server and, therefore, the cross-objections filed on 05.11.2008 were well within the limitation. There is considerable merit in the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant. From the report of Process Server, it is manifest that notice of first appeal was served on the appellant (cross-objector before the lower Appellate Court) on 07.10.2008 and the cross-objections were filed on 05.11.2008 i.e within prescribed period of one month as stipulated in Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. Article 116(b) of the Schedule to the Limitation Act was erroneously RSA No.2867 of 2009 -3- invoked by the lower Appellate Court and the same is not applicable to the filing of cross-objections, but is applicable to filing of appeal. Limitation period for filing cross-objections has been provided in Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C wherein provision for filing of the cross- objections itself has also been made. According to plain language of Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C, cross-objection has to be preferred within one month from the date of service of notice of the appeal on the cross-objector. In the instant case, cross-objections by the appellant herein were preferred before the lower Appellate Court within said period of one month from the date of service of notice of the appeal (preferred in the lower Appellate Court) on the appellant herein. So the cross-objections were well within limitation. In view of the aforesaid, the instant appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and decree dated 08.06.2009 passed by learned lower Appellate Court are set aside to the extent the cross-objections preferred by the appellant herein were dismissed as time barred. Accordingly cross-objections are remanded to lower Appellate Court for fresh decision on merits in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the lower Appellate Court on 18.02.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) JUDGE 12.01.2010 A. Kaundal