1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA Second Appeal No.13 of 2011 1. Mr. Rajaram Vithal Kalangutkar, Son of late Vithal Kalangutkar, Age-about 70 years of age, married, Occupation-Carpenter, Resident of house No.209/4, Peddem,Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. 2. Mr. Narasinha R. Kalangutkar Son of Rajaram Vithal Kalangutkar, Age-39 years, married, Occupation-Mechanic, Resident of House No.209/A, Peddem, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. … Appellant/ Orig.Def No.1 V e r s u s 1. Mrs. Alzira Flora Souza De Melo, Widow of late Mr. Francisco Joao Honorato Fernandes, Age-74 years, retired, Residing below Pedem, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa Presently residing in Rua Das Flolores, No.15 R/C-Dto,2855-199, Corrios, Portugual, Through her power of Attorney, Smt. Devayani Keshav Naik, Widow of Keshav Naik, 2 Major in age, occupation-housewife, Resident of Shetye wada, Mapusa, Bardez, Goa. … Respondent/ Orig. Respondent no.1 Mr. Suesh Usgaonkar, Advocate for the Appellants. Mr. P. Rao, Advocate for the Respondents. Coram: A. P. Lavande, J. Date: 4th March, 2011. J U D G M E N T: Heard Mr. Usgaonkar, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr Rao, learned counsel for the respondents. This Second Appeal is directed agaisnt the Judgment and decree dated 20/10/2010 passed by the Ad- hoc District Judge-I, Fast Track Court Panaji, in Regular Civil Suit No.31/2008 by which appeal preferred by the respondents is allowed and the appellants are restrained from doing business of repairing vehicles in the suit property. 3 2. The appeal is admitted on the following substantial question of law: Whether the judgment and decree passed by the Lower Appellate Court is vitiated by non-consideration of cross-objections filed by the appellants? 3. Perusal of the impugned Judgment and decree discloses that the cross- objections filed by the appellants herein neither have been referred to in judgment nor have been considered by the lower Appellate Court. It is axiomatic that when the respondent in an appeal from a decree files cross-objections in terms of Order 41 Rule 22 of C.P.C, the lower Appellate Court is bound to consider the same and give finding. This exercise has not been done by the lower Appellate Court. Mr. Rao appearing for the respondent fairly concedes this position. 4. In view of the above, the impugned judgment 4 and decree dated 20/10/2010 is quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded to the lower Appellate Court for deciding the appeal afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the parties. 5. Parties to appear before the lower Appellate court on 6/4/2011 at 10.00 a.m. The lower Appellate Court to decide the appeal in accordance with law after considering the cross-objections filed by the appellants. 6. Second appeal stands partly allowed in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs. A. P. Lavande, J. Ap/-