Cross-objections limitation under CPC starts on hearing fixed in respondent's presence; delay may be condoned on justice-oriented discretion.

Order XLI Rule 22 CPC requires cross-objections to be filed within one month of notice of the day fixed for hearing, but the rule is procedural and may be applied with discretion to advance justice. Where a respondent has already appeared as caveator, participated at admission and interim stages, and the appeal is listed for final hearing in that respondent's presence, notice is treated as substantially complied with and limitation runs from that stage. On the stated facts, a later separate notice was not necessary, and the delay in filing cross-objections was liable to be condoned.

---

---

Issues: Whether the limitation for filing cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 begins only on service of a fresh notice fixing the actual date of final hearing, and whether delay in filing the cross-objections could be condoned on the facts of the case.

Analysis: Order XLI Rule 22 requires cross-objections to be filed within one month from service of notice of the day fixed for hearing of the appeal, but the provision is procedural and contains an express discretion enabling the appellate court to allow filing beyond that period. The rule was construed purposively and in harmony with the rest of Order XLI, so that procedure remains an aid to justice and not a technical bar to adjudication on merits. Where a respondent is already before the court as a caveator, participates at the admission stage, is heard on interim relief, and the appeal is directed to be listed for final hearing in that respondent's presence, the requirement of notice is treated as substantially complied with and limitation starts from that stage. In the present facts, the cross-objectors had such participation and therefore could not insist that limitation began only upon a later, separate notice of an actual hearing date. The reasons furnished for the delay were not specifically disbelieved on record, and in the interests of justice the appellate court ought to have exercised its discretion to extend time.

Conclusion: The limitation under Order XLI Rule 22 commenced from the date on which the appeal was directed to be listed for hearing in the presence of the respondents, and the delay in filing the cross-objections was liable to be condoned.

Final Conclusion: The order dismissing the cross-objections was set aside, the delay was condoned, and the matter was sent back for fresh consideration of the State's appeal and the landowners' cross-objections.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural rule prescribing time for cross-objections must receive a liberal, justice-oriented construction, and where the respondent has participated in the appeal proceedings and the appeal is fixed for hearing in that respondent's presence, service of a later separate notice is not necessary for limitation to commence.

---