https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467094 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. en-us Wed, 28 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 Fri, 06 Mar 2026 10:35:28 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467094 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 28 Oct 1987 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=467094