By Shweta Singh
Before delving into the realm of cross-objections, it's essential to elucidate some fundamental principles regarding appeals in the legal context. While the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) doesn't explicitly define the term "appeal," it can be characterized as a process wherein a higher court scrutinizes the decision of a lower court. Essentially, it involves transferring a legal matter from a lower court to a higher court to assess the validity of the lower court's decision. Importantly, the right to appeal isn't an inherent or natural right; it's a creation of statute. In other words, there's no entitlement to appeal unless expressly granted by a statute. This right is substantive, not merely procedural.
The expression “cross-objection” has not been defined in the code. It simply states that cross objections are filed by the respondent against the appellant in an appeal filed by the appellant against the respondent. Still, it is an essential part of the Indian legal system, as is intended to make sure that justice is not only done, but also seen to be done. Appeals provide parties who are unhappy with a court's judgment with a path to resolution, making them a crucial component of the legal process. But the appeals procedure is not just a one-sided story. The party against whom an appeal is filed also has the option to argue their own position, a process known as "cross-objection." The CPC's maze-like legal system contains a unique legal process, which gives the appellate landscape more depth and complexity. In essence, cross-objection gives the respondent in an appeal the ability to contest any parts of a decision or order that might not be in their Favor. It gives a chance to refute the initial judgment and, if necessary, make any necessary corrections. By guaranteeing that all parties to a disagreement have an equal opportunity to voice their grievances and seek an equitable resolution, this system promotes justice.
NATURE OF RIGHT TO APPEAL
“Appeal is the judicial examination of the decision by a higher court of the decision of an inferior court.”
An appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is a legal process involving a higher judicial body's review of a lower forum's decision, considering both legal and factual aspects. This higher authority possesses the authority to affirm, reverse, amend the decision, or remand the case to the lower forum for a fresh adjudication, following the directives issued by the higher forum.
The key components of the appeal process can be succinctly outlined as follows:
A decision (judgement or ruling of an administrative authority)
A person aggrieved
A reviewing body ready and willing to entertain an appeal
A right of an appeal is not a natural or inherent right. An appeal is a creature of statute and there is no right of appeal unless it is given clearly and in express terms by a statute. Sometime an appeal is a matter of rights, sometimes it depends upon the discretion of the court to which such an appeal lies.
The right to appeal is a substantive right and not merely a matter of procedure. So, if a particular act does not provide right to appeal, it cannot de declared ultra vires only on that ground.1
The right to appeal is both statutory and substantive. It is a statutory right because it must be specifically granted by a statute and establish the appellate machinery. Unlike the inherent right to institute a lawsuit, the right to appeal is provided by law. Additionally, the right to appeal is substantive, meaning that it must be exercised prospectively unless the statute states otherwise. It is a vested right and accrues to the litigant and exists as on and from the date the lis commences and although it may be actually exercised when the adverse judgment is pronounced, such right is to be governed by the law prevailing at the date of the institution of the suit or proceeding and not by the law that prevails at the date of its decision or at the date of the filing of the appeal." This vested right of appeal can be taken away only by a subsequent enactment if it so provides expressly or by necessary implication, and not otherwise.
However, parties may waive this right through an agreement, and accepting benefits under a decree may stop a party from challenging its validity. It’s important to note that the right to appeal is determined based on the law as it exists at the time of the original suit.
SCOPE OF CROSS OBJECTION
The term "cross-objection" remains undefined in the Code. It allows respondents to file objections in response to the appellant's appeal voluntarily. Order 41 Rule 22 provides this option when an appeal is accepted, and the court notifies the respondent. Notably, cross-objections cannot be filed if no appeal is submitted by the appellant or if the court does not accept the appeal.
The Rule 22 of Order XLI in the Code of Civil Procedure provides two remedies for the respondent:
Supporting the decree, which is limited to sustaining the favourable parts of the decree.
Attacking the decree through cross-objections.
This rule applies to decrees, not mere findings, and allows the respondent to challenge unfavourable findings only if the appellant has filed an appeal. If the appellant doesn't appeal, the respondent has no remedy against adverse findings, as clarified in the case of Venkata v. Satyanarayan.
In cases where a suit is partly in favor of one party but has adverse findings, the respondent can address these issues only if the appellant initiates an appeal. For instance, if a suit by A against B is decreed in favor of B but contains unfavorable findings, B cannot challenge those findings unless A files an appeal.
Order XLI Rule 22 in the Code of Civil Procedure allows a respondent, who hasn't filed an appeal against a decree, to object to that decree by submitting cross-objections within an appeal filed by the opposing party. When a suit results in a partial victory for one party and partial defeat for the other, and an appeal is initiated by either the plaintiff or defendant, the respondent can choose from these options:
Prefer an appeal against the part of the decree unfavourable to them, leading to two appeals against the same decree, known as cross-appeals. Both appeals are resolved together.
Raise objections against the unfavourable part of the decree without filing a separate appeal. These objections are termed cross-objections.
Support the decree based on the grounds decided in their favour, or even those decided against them, without initiating cross-appeal or cross-objection. This principle was clarified in the case of "Ramanbhai Ashabhai V Dabhi Ajitkumar Fulsinji.2
In the case of Venkateshwarlu v Ramana3, the High Court of Madras clarified that 'cross-objection' is intended for respondents to object against appellants. It's distinct from 'cross-appeal' because cross-objections are part of the same record, while cross-appeals are separate proceedings, as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Jayaram Reddi v R.D.O.
Cross-objections can be filed by respondents if they could have filed an appeal against any part of the decree or if they are aggrieved by a finding in the judgment, even if the decree is in their favour due to other findings. It's a substantive right, not just procedural, as seen in Pannalal v State of Bombay4.
Typically, cross-objections are filed against the appellant, but in exceptional cases, one respondent may file cross-objections against another respondent, especially when their objections are common and intertwined with the relief against the appellant.
Cross-objections should be in the form of a memorandum of appeal, served on the affected party or their pleader. They must be filed within one month from the date of receiving the notice of the appeal's hearing, with the possibility of extension based on discretion.
Both the appeal and cross-objections should be heard together and decided in a common judgment, incorporating the decisions on both, as held in Krishna Gopal v Haji Mohd5.
Generally, in the absence of a cross-appeal or cross-objection by the respondent, the appellate court cannot disturb the decree in favour of the appellant, but this is subject to Order XLI Rule 33 of the CPC, as clarified in Chaudhary Sahu v State of Bihar6.
CONSEQUENCES IN CASE OF WITHDRAWAL OR DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL
Order 41, Rule 22(4) makes it clear that if an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, cross-objections won't automatically be rejected on the grounds of appeal dismissal. This rule applies only when the appeal was inherently incompetent or time-barred from the start. The withdrawal of an appeal or its dismissal for default doesn't hinder the consideration of cross-objections, as affirmed in the case of Bhimasena v Venugopal.
The fact of the case is as follows:
In this case, an appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to provide security for costs, it qualifies as a 'dismissal for default' under sub-rule (4). Similarly, if an appeal is disposed of after a hearing, it doesn't prevent the hearing of a cross-appeal, especially if the appeal's disposal was due to oversight. Order 41, Rule 22(4) serves as an enabling provision for cross-objection hearings in the event of appeal dismissal for default or withdrawal. It doesn't prohibit cross-objections even if the appeal is decided on its merits. This principle applies even if the appeal was inadvertently disposed of or for other reasons without addressing the cross-objections. However, if the appeal has abated, the respondent is not entitled to have their cross-objections heard, even if the legal representative of the deceased has been added to the cross-appeal. If the appeal is legally incompetent, the cross-objections must be rejected as untenable.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this comprehensive exploration of appeals and cross-objections within the legal framework highlights their pivotal role in ensuring justice is not just done but also seen to be done. Appeals, being a statutory creation, are not an inherent right but rather a substantive privilege conferred by law. The right to appeal is determined based on the legal landscape at the initiation of the suit, and parties can waive this right through agreements or acceptance of benefits under a decree.
Cross-objections, a unique feature of the Code of Civil Procedure, provide respondents with a crucial avenue to challenge adverse findings or aspects of a decree. These objections can be filed when an appeal is initiated by the opposing party, allowing for a balanced and equitable resolution of disputes. The Code's provisions ensure that all parties involved have an equal opportunity to voice their grievances.
Additionally, the consequences of appeal withdrawal or dismissal have been clarified, emphasizing that cross-objections remain valid even if an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default. This provision ensures that justice prevails, particularly in cases where appeals are disposed of inadvertently or for other reasons without addressing cross-objections.
In essence, this examination underscores the intricacies of appeals, cross-objections, and their profound implications in the pursuit of justice within the legal system. These legal mechanisms serve as crucial pillars in maintaining fairness, transparency, and the rule of law.
The author of this article is Shweta Singh, a third-year BALLb student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur.
This article contains the view of the author and the publisher in no way associates with the views or ideologies of the author. All the moral rights vests with the Author(s).
Comments