A first appeal is usually pictured as a one-way contest: the losing party appeals, the winning party defends. Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 complicates that picture in a useful way. A respondent who was partly unsuccessful in the trial court, and who chose not to file an appeal of his own, is not locked out. The Rule gives him two distinct options once the appeal is served on him: he may support the decree on grounds decided against him, and he may file cross-objections to attack the portion of the decree that went against him. This explainer sets out the mechanics of both.
Two distinct rights under Rule 22
Order XLI Rule 22 gives a respondent who has not filed his own appeal two separate tools, and much confusion in practice comes from mixing them up.
The first is the right to support the decree. A respondent may urge that the decree should be affirmed not only on the grounds the trial court accepted, but also on any ground which the trial court decided against him. Suppose a suit is dismissed on limitation, but the trial court also holds, against the defendant, that the agreement sued upon was validly executed. If the plaintiff appeals, the defendant-respondent may defend the dismissal by re-arguing the execution point — even though it was decided against him — without filing anything at all. He is not seeking any change in the decree; he is offering an additional reason why the result should stand.
The second is the right to file cross-objections. This is the tool for a respondent who wants the decree actually varied in his favour — for example, where a money suit was decreed only in part and the plaintiff-respondent wants the disallowed portion as well, or where a defendant-respondent was saddled with a finding and a portion of the decree he wishes to displace. Because the respondent here seeks affirmative relief against the decree, a formal memorandum and court fee are required.
Form, court fee and time
- Form: cross-objections are filed as a memorandum, drawn up in the same manner as a memorandum of appeal — concise, numbered grounds, without argument or narrative.
- Court fee: the memorandum must bear court fee as on an appeal, valued on the relief actually sought by the cross-objections.
- Time: within one month from service on the respondent, or on his pleader, of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the appellate court may allow.
- Service: copies are to be served on the parties affected, so that the appellant and any affected co-respondent can meet the objections.
The starting point of the clock deserves attention. Time runs not from the filing of the appeal, nor from its admission, but from service of notice of the day fixed for hearing. A respondent who has entered appearance early in the appeal should not assume the window has already opened or closed; the safer course is to compute time carefully from the relevant service and, where there is any doubt or delay, to seek the further time the Rule itself contemplates.
An independent life: withdrawal and default
Rule 22 expressly provides that cross-objections may be heard and determined on their merits notwithstanding that the original appeal has been withdrawn, or is dismissed for default. An appellant who senses that the cross-objections are stronger than his appeal cannot escape them by abandoning the field.
This feature is what makes cross-objections a genuine substantive remedy rather than a mere defensive pleading. Once validly filed, they stand on their own footing: the appellate court proceeds to decide them even if the appeal that occasioned them disappears. The respondent should, however, remain ready to prosecute the cross-objections independently, including payment of any process and appearance on the dates fixed.
Against whom may cross-objections be directed?
Ordinarily, cross-objections are directed against the appellant — the respondent attacks the part of the decree favouring the party who has brought the appeal. Whether cross-objections can be aimed at a co-respondent is a narrower question. The generally accepted position is that they may be entertained against a co-respondent only in limited situations — broadly, where the relief sought against the appellant and the co-respondent is so interlinked that the objections cannot be effectively decided against one without the other, or where the appeal itself opens up the controversy between the respondents. A respondent whose real grievance is against a co-respondent alone should think seriously about an independent appeal rather than relying on Rule 22.
Cross-objections or a separate appeal?
Both routes attack a decree, and the choice matters:
- A separate appeal (a cross-appeal) is the respondent’s own proceeding, filed within the limitation prescribed for appeals, independent from start to finish. It is the right course where the respondent’s grievance is substantial, where he would wish to pursue it even if the other side never appealed, or where the target of the challenge is a co-respondent.
- Cross-objections are parasitic in origin — they are triggered by the opposite party’s appeal and enjoy the special one-month window computed from service of the hearing notice. They suit a respondent who was content to live with the decree but, once dragged to the appellate court, wishes to reopen the part that went against him. Their survival on withdrawal or default means the respondent is not left stranded if the appeal collapses.
Where limitation for an independent appeal has expired, Rule 22 can operate as a second window — but it opens only if the other side appeals, so it should never be treated as a substitute for a considered decision on whether to appeal.
Practice in Delhi
In the Delhi High Court, cross-objections arise most often in regular first appeals (RFA) against decrees and in appeals from orders (FAO), and they are filed through the Registry in the same manner as an appeal memorandum, with e-filing, proper pagination and court fee. Registry scrutiny applies with equal rigour: valuation and deficiency in court fee, missing affidavits and unpaginated annexures are routine objections. In the District Courts of Delhi, cross-objections before the first appellate court follow the same Rule 22 framework. In both forums, cross-objections are ordinarily heard together with the main appeal, and a respondent should ensure they are formally on record and numbered before the appeal is taken up for final hearing, so that the appellate court deals with the whole controversy in one judgment.
Frequently Asked Questions
Does a respondent need to file anything to support the decree on a ground the trial court rejected?
No. Order XLI Rule 22 permits a respondent to support the decree on any ground decided against him in the court below without filing cross-objections. This is because he is defending the result, not seeking to change it. Cross-objections become necessary only where the respondent wants the decree itself varied in his favour.
What is the time limit for filing cross-objections?
Cross-objections are to be filed within one month from the date of service on the respondent, or his pleader, of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. The appellate court has the power to allow further time, and applications seeking such extension should explain the delay candidly and be supported by an affidavit where required.
What happens to cross-objections if the appeal is withdrawn?
They survive. Order XLI Rule 22 provides that cross-objections may be heard and decided on their merits even where the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default. Once properly filed, cross-objections have an independent life, and the appellant cannot defeat them simply by abandoning his own appeal.
Is court fee payable on cross-objections?
Yes. A memorandum of cross-objections must bear court fee as though it were a memorandum of appeal, computed on the value of the relief the respondent seeks by the cross-objections. Deficient court fee is a common Registry objection, so the valuation should be worked out with the same care as for an appeal.