Cross-objection and appellate relief under CPC: Rule 22 limits claims against co-respondents, but Rule 33 can still support justice.

Order 41 Rule 22 CPC ordinarily permits a cross-objection against the appellant, but in exceptional cases it may extend to a co-respondent where the relief is so interlinked that effective adjudication requires reopening the controversy. On the facts discussed, the cross-objection was maintainable against the appellant on issues of title and possession arising from the sale transaction, but not against the co-respondent insofar as it concerned an independent lease claim. Order 41 Rule 33 CPC was nevertheless available as a broad discretionary power to grant appropriate relief and do complete justice between parties before the appellate court, even where Rule 22 did not furnish a remedy against a co-respondent.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable against the appellant and the co-respondent; (ii) whether, if the cross-objection was not maintainable against the co-respondent under Order 41 Rule 22, relief could still be granted under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Issue (i): whether a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was maintainable against the appellant and the co-respondent.

Analysis: A cross-objection is ordinarily directed against the appellant, but in exceptional cases it may also lie against a co-respondent where the relief sought is so interlinked that the matter cannot be effectively decided without reopening the controversy between respondents. The objection to title and possession arising from the sale transaction was connected to the appeal and could be raised against the appellant purchasers. The objection relating to the lease, however, was independent of the appeal and concerned only the co-respondent's rights.

Conclusion: The cross-objection was maintainable against the appellant, but not against the co-respondent insofar as it related to the lease.

Issue (ii): whether, if the cross-objection was not maintainable against the co-respondent under Order 41 Rule 22, relief could still be granted under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Analysis: Order 41 Rule 33 confers a wide discretionary power on the appellate court to pass any decree or order that ought to have been passed and to do complete justice between the parties, even in favour of a respondent who has not appealed or objected. That power is not excluded merely because a cross-objection against a co-respondent is not maintainable under Rule 22. Where the necessary parties are before the court and the question arises out of the decree under appeal, Rule 33 may be invoked to avoid failure of justice.

Conclusion: Relief could be considered under Order 41 Rule 33 notwithstanding the limitation under Order 41 Rule 22.

Final Conclusion: The High Court's view on maintainability was set aside, and the matter was sent back for reconsideration of the appeal and cross-objection in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: Order 41 Rule 22 generally confines a cross-objection to the appellant, while Order 41 Rule 33 empowers the appellate court to grant appropriate relief to any party before it in order to do complete justice, including in cases where Rule 22 does not furnish a remedy against a co-respondent.

---