Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
25. Such provisions should be construed on their plain meaning and it may not be necessary for the Court to bring into service other principles of statutory interpretation. However, the maxim De minimis non curat lex shall apply to such statutory provisi~ns.
26. Bennion on Statutory Interpretation (5th Edn., 2008, at C page 55) states that "Where discretion exists The Coµrt will be more willing to hold that a statutory requirement is merely directory if any breach of the requirement is necessarily followed by an o opportunity to exercise some judicial or official discretion in a way which can adequately compensate for that breach."
27. In the case of Kai/ash v. Nanhku & others, ((2005) 4 SCC 480], a Bench of three Judges of this Court while interpreting the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code, which has more stringent language and provides no such discretion to extend the limitation as provided to the Courts in Order XU Rule 22, had observed that despite the use of such language in the provisions of Order VIII Rule 1 of the Code, the judicial discretion to extend the limitation contained therein has been a matter of legal scrutiny for quite some time but now the law is well settled that in special circumstances, the Court can even extend the time beyond the 90 days as specified therein and held as under: "The object is to expedite the hearing and not to scuttle the same. The process of justice may be speeded up and hurried but the fairness which is a basic element of justice cannot be permitted to be buried … In an adversarial system, no party should ordinarily be denied the MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] opportunity of participating in the process of justice A dispensation. Unless compelled by express and specific language of the statute, the pr..Q_visions of CPC or any other procedural enactment ought not to be construed in a manner which would leave the court helpless to meet extraordinary situations in the ends of justice."
28. Thus, it is an undisputed principle of law that the procedural laws are primarily intended to achieve the ends of justice and, normally, not to shut the doors of justice for the parties at the very threshold. We have already noticed that there is no indefeasible divestment of right of the cross-objector in case of a delay and his rights to file cross-objections are protected even at a belated stage by the discretion vested in the Courts. But at the same time, the Court cannot lose sight of the fact that meaning of 'ends of justice' essentially refers to justice for all the parties involved in the litigation. It will be unfair D to give an interpretation to a provision to vest a party with a right at the cost of the other, particularly, when statutory provisions do not so specifically or even impliedly provide for the same. The provisions of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code are akin to the provisions of the Limitation Act, 1963, i.e. when such provisions bar a remedy, by efflux of time, to one party, it gives consequential benefit to the opposite party. Before such vested benefit can be taken away, the Court has to strike a balance between respective rights of the parties on the plain reading of the statutory provision to meet the ends of justice. If a cross- objector fails to file cross-objections within the stipulated time, then his right to file cross-objections is taken away only in a limited sense. To that extent a benefit is granted to the other party, i.e. the appellant, of having their appeal heard without such cross-objections. Still, however, if the Court is of the G opinion that it is just and proper to permit the filing of cross- objection even after the expiry of the statutory limitation of one month, it is certainly vested with power to grant the same, but of course, only after hearing the other party. That is how the rights of the parties are to be balanced in consonance with the scheme of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code.
29. In Justice G.P. Singh's Principles of Statutory Interpretation (11th Edn., 2008), the learned author while referring to judgments of different Courts states (at page 134) that procedural laws regulating proceedings in court are to be construed as to render justice wherever reasonably possible and to avoid injustice from a mistake of court. He further states (at pages 135 and 136) that: "Consideration of hardship, injustice or absurdity as avoiding a particular construction is a rule which must be applied with great care. "The argument ab C inconvenienti", said LORD MOULTON, "is one which requires to be used with great caution"."
30. The learned author while referring to the judgments of this Court in the case of Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, D Kotah [(1955) 2 SCR 1] recorded (at page 384) that "while considering the non-compliance with a procedural requirement, it has to be kept in view that such a requirement is designed to facilitate justice and further its ends c:.nd therefore, if the consequence of non-compliance is not provided, the requirement may be held to be directory … "
31. This Court in the case of Byram Pestonji Gariwala v. Union Bank of India & others [(1992) 1 SCC 31] referred to Crawford's Statutory Construction (para 254) to say that: "Statutes relating to remedies and procedure must receive a. liberal construction 'especially so as to secure a more effective, a speedier, a simpler, and a less expensive administration of. law'."
32. The consistent view taken by this Court is that the G provisions of a statute are normally construed to achieve the ends of justice, advance the interest of public and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. In the case of Dondapati Narayana Reddy v. Duggireddy Venkatanarayana Reddy & others [2001 (8) SCC 115], this Court expressed similar view in relation to H amendment of pleadings. The principles stated in this judgment MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] may aptly be applied generally in relation to the interpretation of provisions of the Code. Strict construction of a procedural law is called for where there is complete extinguishment of rights, as opposed to the cases where discretion is vested in the courts to balance the equities between the parties to meet the ends of justice which would invite liberal construction. For example, under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code, cross objections can be filed at any subsequent time, even after expiry of statutory period of one month, as may be allowed by the Court. Thus, it is evidently clear that there is no complete or indefeasible extinguishment of right to file cross objections c after the expiry of statutory period of limitation provided under the said provision. Cross-objections within the scheme of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code are to be treated as separate appeal and must be disposed of on same principles in accordance with the provisions of Order XU of the Code.
33. This Court in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) while dealing with the principles of interpretation of provisions of the · Code, laid down three principles which have to be kept in mind while interpreting any portion of the Code and held as under: "31. In our opinion, Wallace, J., and the other judges who adopt the same line of thought, are right. As we have already observed, our laws of procedure are based on the principle that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a Court of law should be conducted to the detriment of a person in his absence. There are of course exceptions, and this is one of them. When the defendant has been served and has been afforded an opportunity of appearing, then, if he does not appear, the Court may proceed in his absence. But, be it noted, the Court is not directed to make an ex parte order. Of course the fact that it is proceedings ex parte will be recorded in the minutes of its proceedings but that is merely a statement of the fact and is not an order made against the defendant in the sense of an ex parte decree or other ex parte order which the Court is authorised to make. All that Rule 6(1 )(a) does is to remove a bar and no more. It merely authorises the Court to do that which it could not have done without this authority, namely to proceed in the absence of one of the parties. The contrast in language between rules 7 and 13 emphasises this.
34. This Court has reiterated the above dictum with approval in the case of Kai/ash (supra). The above-stated principles require the Court to give precedence to the right of C a party to put forward its case. In other words unnecessary and avoidable technical impediments should not be introduced by virtue of interpretative process. At the same time any irreparable loss should not be caused to a party on whom the right might have vested as a result of default of other party. Furthermore, the courts have to keep in mind the realities of D explosion of litigation because of which the Court normally takes time to dispose of appeals. It would be a travesty of justice, if after passage of su.bstantial time when the appeal is taken up for final hearing a cross-objector who was heard and participated in the hearing at the admission stage itself, claims E that the limitation period for him to file his cross-objection will commence only from the date of service of a fresh notice on him or his pleader, in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code. Such an interpretation would jeopardize the very purpose and object of the statute and prejudicially affect the administration F of justice as the appeal which has come up for final hearing and disposal would again be lost in the bundle of pending cases on this pretext. It is trite that justice must not only be done but must also appear to have been done to all the parties to a lis before the Court.
35. Procedural laws, like the Code, are intended to control and regulate the procedure of judicial proceedings to achieve the objects of justice and expeditious disposal of cases. The provisions of procedural law which do not provide for penal H consequences in default of their compliance should normally be MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.) construed as directory in nature and should receive liberal construction. The Court should always keep in mind the object of the statute and adopt an interpretation which would further such cause in light of attendant circumstances.
36. To put it simply, the procedural law must act as a linchpin to keep the wheel of expeditious and effective determination of dispute moving in its place. The procedural checks must achieve its end object of just, fair and expeditious justice to parties without seriously prejudicing the rights of any of them. c
37. Now, we would proceed to examine the language of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code. The stipulated period of one month is to commence from the date of service, on the concerned party or his pleader, of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. A cross-objection may also be filed within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. Date of hearing
38. First and foremost, we must explain what is meant by 'hearing the appeal'. Hearing of the appeal can be classified in two different stages; one at the admission stage and the other at the final stage. Date of hearing has normally been defined as the date on which the court applies its mind to the merits of the case. If the appeal is heard ex-parte for admission under Order XLI Rule 11 of the Code, the Court could dismiss it at that very stage or admit the same for regular hearing. Such appeal could be heard in the presence of the other party at the admission stage itself, particularly, in cases where a caveat is lodged by the respondent to the appeal.
39. The concept of 'hearing by the Court', in fact, has common application both under Civil and Criminal jurisprudence. Even in a criminal matter the hearing of the case is said to be commenced by the Court only when it applies its mind to frame a charge etc. Similarly, under civil law also it is A only when the Court actually applies its mind to averments made by party/parties, it can be considered as hearing of the case. This Court in the case of Siraj Ahmad Siddiqui v. Prem Nath Kapoor [1993 (4) SCC 406] while dealing with the provisions of the U.P. Urban Buildings (Regulation of Letting, Rent & B 'Eviction) Act, 1972, referring to the concept of first hearing, held as under: c "13. The date of first hearing of a suit under the Code is ordinarily understood to be the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to the contentions in the pleadings of the parties to the suit and in the documents filed by them for the purpose of framing the issues to be decided in the suit. ………………………………….. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . We are of the view, therefore, that the date of first hearing as defined in the said Act is the date on which the court proposes to apply its mind to determine the points in controversy between the parties to the suit and to frame issues, if necessary."
40. The date of hearing must not be confused with the E expression 'step in the proceedings'. These are two different concepts of procedural law and have different connotation and application. What may be a 'step in the proceeding', essentially, may not mean a 'hearing' by the Court. Necessary ingredients of 'hearing' thus are application of mind by the court F and address by the party to the suits.
41. Now we would proceed to discuss the purpose of giving one month's time and notice to the respondent to file cross-objection. The primary intention is, obviously, to give him a reasonable opportunity to file cross-objections in the appeal G filed by the other party. It may be noticed that filing of cross- objections is not an exclusive but, an alternate remedy which a party can avail as alternative of filing a separate appeal in its own right. MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.]
42. The language of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code fixes the period of limitation to be computed from the date of service of notice of hearing of the appeal upon the respondent/cross- objector and within one month of such date he has to file cross objections. Thus, the crucial point of time is the date on which the notice of hearing of the appeal is served. This could be a notice for actual date of hearing or otherwise.
43. There appears to be a dual purpose emerging from the language of Order XLI Rule 22. of the Code. Firstly, to grant time of one month or even such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow; and secondly, to put the party or his pleader at notice that the appeal has been admitted and is fixed for hearing and the Court is going to pronounce upon the rights and contention of the parties on the merits of the appeal. Once such notice is served, the period of limitation under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code will obviously start running from that date. If both these purposes are achieved any time prior to the service of a fresh notice then it would be an exercise in futility to issue a separate notice which is bound to result in inordinate delay in disposal of appeals which, in turn, would be prejudicial to the appellants. A law of procedure should always be construed to eliminate both these possibilities.
44. A Bench of three Judges of this Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu v. Union of India [(2003) 1 ·sec 49) while examining the constitutional validity of various amended provisions of the Code, (amended or introduced by Amendment Act 46 of 1999 and Amendment Act 22 of 2002) discussed requirements of Section 27 of the Code which relates to issuance of summons to the defendants to appear and answer the claim. Such summons are required to be issued within one month from the date of institution of the suit. The Court held that once steps in furtherance to issuance · of summons within one month are taken by the plaintiff, then even if the summons are not served within that period, it will be substantial compliance of the provisions of Section 27 of the Code. Following dictum of the court can be usefully noticed c at this stage. "7. It was submitted by Mr. Vaidyanathan that the words "on such day not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit" seem to indicate that the summons must be served within thirty days of the date of the institution of the suit. In our opinion, the said provisions read as a whole will not be susceptible to that meaning. The words added by amendment, it appears, fix outer time frame, by providing that steps must be taken within thirty days from the date of the institution of the suit, to issue summons. In other words, if the suit is instituted, for example, on 1st January, 2002, then the correct addresses of the defendants and the process fee must be filed in the Court within thirty days so that summons be issued by the Court not beyond thirty days from the date of the institution of the-snit.The object is to avoid long delay in issue of summons for want of steps by the plaintiff. It is quite evident that if all that is required to be done by a party, has been performed within the period of thirty days, then no fault can be attributed to the party. If for any reason, the court is not in a position or is unable to or does not issue summons within thirty days, there will, in our opinion, be compliance with the provisions of Section 27 once within thirty days of the issue of the summons the party concerned has taken steps to file the process fee along with completing the other formalities which are required to enable the court to issue the summons."
45. The learned counsel for the appellant also relied upon G the judgment of this court in the case of Sushil Kumar Sabharwal v. Gurpreet Singh & others [2002 (5) SCC 377] to contend that knowledge of appeal cannot be equated to notice of date of hearing. There is no doubt that this Court in para 11 of that judgment made a distinction between the knowledge of the date of hearing and the knowledge of pendency of suit. MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA[ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] Referring to the evidence in that case, this Court held that the version of the defendant should have been believed by the courts concerned because he was denied a reasonable opportunity to present his case before the Court. In the present case this distinction is hardly of any help to the counsel for the appellant inasmuch as they have appeared and argued at the admission stage of the appeal which was admitted in their presence and an order was also passed for final hearing.
46. Adverting to the facts of the present case, as already noticed, the appellants had also filed caveat in the appeal. In law, the rights of a caveator are different from that of cross- objectors per se. In terms of Section 148A of the Code, a caveator has a right to be heard mandatorily for the purposes of passing of an interlocutory order. The law contemplates that a caveator is to be heard by the court before any interim order 0 can be passed against him. But in the present case when the appeal was listed for hearing at the admission stage itself, the appellants had appeared and argued the matter not only in relation to grant of an interim order but also on the merits of the appeal. The High Court, on 12th of September, 2001, after applying its mind to the merits of the case had passed the following order: "Admit. Heard the counsel for the appellant and respondent. Interim stay as prayed, in I.A. 11/01 subject to the appellant depositing 50% of amount awarded with all statutory benefits etc., before the reference court, within eight weeks. Respondents permitted to withdraw 25% of the amount. Remaining 25% amount shall be kept in fixed deposit for the term of six months. Call for records. List for hearing immediately after the records are received with connected cases."
47. As is evident from the above order, the records were required to be called from the lower courts and thereafter, the appeal was to be heard finally. Though the court had not actually fixed any particular date, it had directed the appeal to be listed for hearing. Then again, vide its order dated 25th January, 2002, the High Court had directed the appellant(s) to move an application for early hearing of the appeal. On all these C occasions, the appellant(s), or his pleader, was present and participated in the proceedings before the Court. Thus, the appellant(s) not only had the knowledge of pendency of the appeal but also had notice of fixing of hearing of the appeal. Even on 18th September, 2003, the High Court took notice of the cross-objection and counsel for the appellant(s)/cross D objector was directed to furnish copies of the cross-objection within three weeks to the Additional Advocate General. After the records from lower courts were received, the matter was heard and judgment impugned in the present appeal was pronounced by the High Court on 22nd October, 2003.
48. In these circumstances, it is difficult for this Court to hold that the period of 30 days, as contemplated under Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code, never commenced even till final disposal of the appeal. Such an interpretation will frustrate the very purpose of the Code and would be contrary to the legislative intent. We may also notice that the_ appeal was finally heard without fixing any particular date and in presence of the appellant(s). Under such circumstances, the requirement of fixing a final date separately must be deemed to be waived by G the parties.
49. It may be noticed that somewhat divergent views have been taken by different High Courts while interpreting the provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code. The High Court of Rajasthan in the case of The East India Hotels Limited v. MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.) Smt. Mahendra Kumari [AIR 2008 Raj. 131) took the view that respondent cross-objector had put in appearance through his counsel as a caveator and the appeal was admitted on 28th March, 2006 in his presence and participation. As the appeal was admitted in their presence, the Rajasthan High Court opined that no notice thereafter was required to be served on the caveator for the purposes of Order XU Rule 22 and period of limitation of one month would start from 28th March, 2006 (i.e. the date of admission) for filing of cross-objection. The filing of the cross objection in that case was delayed by 507 days. On the issue of condonation the High Court felt that the c delay could not be condoned in the facts and circumstances of the case and thus dismissed the cross-objections as barred by time. It also needs to be noticed that the judgments of the Delhi High Court in the case of Jhutter Singh (supra) and Rashida Begum (supra) were also examined by the Rajasthan High Court and are distinguished on facts as in those cases at no point of time the objector or respondent had participated.
50. The Rajasthan High Court also relied upon the judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in the case of Mutyam Agaiah v. Special Deputy Collector, (NTPC) L.A. Unit. [2002 (2) ALT 715] wherein that High Court while accepting the submissions of the respondent had held that: " … We have to understand the issue of notices in the proper perspective. The notices are meant for giving knowledge to the other side regarding the judicial proceedings filed by the appellant. It is not every time necessary that the notices should be in writing in the prescribed form. If the knowledge of filing of the appeals can be proved, then it is sufficient notice in law. The respondent-cross objector engaged an Advocate, who filed vakalatnama and he defended the cause of the claimant in the Original Petition. It means that the cross- objector had sufficient knowledge regarding the appeals. Nothing prevented for the respondent-cross-objector for filing the objections ……. " [2011) 8 S.C.R.
51. In the case of Rashida Begum (supra) the Delhi High Court had noticed that limitation for filing the cross objection would start from the date of service of notice of hearing of the appeal. A notice containihg only the date of hearing of the stay application but not the appeal would not be 'notice' as B contemplated under Order XU Rl1le 22 of the Code.
52. The view taken by the Delhi High Court is more in line with the intent of the provisions of Order XU Rule 22 while the decision of the Rajasthan High Court was on its own facts and C cannot be treated to be stating a preposition of law. The application of law would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case and what is the true and correct construction of Order XU Rule 22 we shall shortly proceed to state.
53. In the case of Pralhad & others v. State of Maharashtra and another [2010 (10) SCC 458], a Bench of this Court to which one of us was a member was dealing with the object and scope of the powers vested in the Court in terms of Order XU Rule 33 of the Code. This Court observed that Rule 33 E empowers the Appellate Court to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made and also to pass or make such further decree or order as the case may require. The Appellate Court can exercise this power notwithstanding that appeal is only with respect to a part of F decree. This power may be exercised in favour of any of the respondents or the parties although such respondent or party may not have filed any appeal or objections. In other words, the Court has been vested with the power to pass such orders which ought to have been passed in the facts of a given case. G While dealing with this issue, this Court held as under: "18. The provision of Order XU Rule 33 CPC is clearly an enabling provision, whereby the appellate court is empowered to pass any decree or make any order which ought to have been passed or made, and to pass or make such further or other decree or order as the case may MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] require. Therefore, the power is very wide and in this enabling provision, the crucial words are that the appellate court is empowered to pass any order which ought to have been made as the case may require. The expression "order ought to have been made" would obviously mean an order which justice of the case requires to be made. This is made clear from the expression used in the said rule by saying "the court may pass such further or other order as the case may require". This expression "case" would mean the justice of the case. Of course, this power cannot be exercised ignoring a legal interdict or a c prohibition clamped by law."
54. The Court clearly held that the expression "order ought to have been made" obviously means an order which justice demands in facts of the case. The dictum of law stated by this Court clearly demonstrates that justice between the parties to a case is the essence of procedural law and unless the statute expressly prohibits or put an embargo, the Courts would interpret the procedural law so as to achieve the ends of justice.
55. If we examine the provisions of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code in its correct perspective and in light of the above stated principles then the period of limitation of one month stated therein would commence from the service of notice of the day of hearing of appeal on the respondent in that appeal. The hearing contemplated under Order XU Rule 22 of the Code normally is the final hearing of the appeal but this rule is not without any exception. The exception could be where a party respondent appears at the time of admission of the appeal, as a caveator or otherwise and argues the appeal on merits as well as while passing of interim orders and the Court has admitted the appeal in the presence of that party and directs the appeal to be heard finally on a future date actual or otherwise, then it has to be taken as complete compliance of the provisions of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code and thereafter, the appellant who has appeared himself or through his pleader cannot claim that period mentioned under the said provision of the Code would commence on_ly.yt_hen the respondent is served with a fresh notice of hearing of the appeal in the ~… – -,I— required format. If this argument is accepted it would amount to travesty of justice and inevitably result in delay while causing serious prejudice to the interest of the parties and administration of justice. Such interpretation would run contra to the legislative intent behind the provisions of Order XU Rule 11 of the Code which explicitly contemplate that an appeal shall be heard expeditiously and disposed of as far as possible c within 60 days at the admission stage. All the provisions of Order XU of the Code have to be read conjunctively to give Order XU Rule 22 its true and purposive meaning. Having analytically examined the provisions of Order XU Rule 22, we may now state the principles for its applications as follow: (a) Respondent in an appeal is entitled to receive a notice of hearing of the appeal as contemplated under Order XU Rule 22 of the Code; (b) '. j The limitation of one month for filing the cross- objection as provided under Order XU Rule 22 of the Code shall commence from the date of service of notice on him or his pleader of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. (c) Where a respondent in the appeal is a caveator or otherwise puts in appearance himself and argues the appeal on merits including for the purposes of interim order and the appeal is ordered to be heard finally on a date fixed subsequently or otherwise, in presence of the said respondent/caveator, it shall be deemed to be service of notice within the meaning of Order XU Rule 22. In other words the f limitation of one month shall start from that date.
56. Needless to notice that the cross-objections are H required to be filed within the period of one month from the date MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] of service of such notice or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow depending upon the facts and circumstances of the given case.
57. Since the provisions of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code itself provide for extension of time, the Courts would normally be inclined to condone the delay in the interest of justice unless and until the cross-objector is unable to furnish a reasonable or sufficient cause for seeking the leave of the Court to file cross-objections beyond the statutory period of one month.
58. Examining the case in hand within the legal framework afore-stated, it has to be held that the case falls squarely wifhin the principles formulated in clause (c). The appellant(s) herein were caveators before the High Court and they were heard not only while passing of interim orders but the appeal itself was admitted in their presence. Further, the" Court directed that the records from lower court be called and after receipt of such record the appeal was directed to be listed for final disposal. Thus, the cross-objector not merely had the knowledge of pendency of the appeal and order of the High Court for its final disposal but he actually participated at all the stages of the proceedings before that Court, i.e. at the stage of admission of appeal, passing of interim orders and variation thereof and at the stage of consideration of application of the cross- objector, moved for early hearing of the appeal and, in fact, the appeal had been directed to be heard finally in his presence. Thus, in these circumstances, one month of prescribed period in terms of Order XU Rule 22 of the Code shall commence from 12th September, 2001, i.e. the date on which the High Court ordered that the appeal may be listed for hearing.
59. As the period for filing the cross objection had long expired, the application for condonation of delay was filed. It is interesting to note that the appellants in this Court themselves admitted that they had received the notice of the appeal through their counsel and the period of one month came to an end on 12th October, 2001. This submission has been made in paragraph 3 of the affidavit annexed to the application filed by the cross-objector before the High Court under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, along with the cross-objections, praying for condonation of delay and leave of that Court to file their cross-objections beyond the statutory period of one month as B provided in Order XU Rule 22 of the Code.
60. Delay was sought to be condoned on the ground th~t the appellants have appeared before the Court and despite receipt of the, notice of final hearing they could not file cross- C objections within the prescribed time as they were out of their native place and have gone to Karwar to earn their livelihood and they could not therefore receive the letter and that too within one month. Later, the appellant fell down and his leg was twisted and because of swelling and pain he was not able to drive and consult his counsel in Bangalore. It is only after he D got well, he met his counsel and filed the cross-objections on 19th November, 2002, i.e. after a delay of 404 days. The High Court did not find any merit in the reasons shown for condonation of delay and dismissed tt.e said application. We have already noticed that Order XU Rule 22 of the Code itself E provides a discretion to the Appellate Court to grant further time to the crqss-objector for the purposes of filing cross-objections provided the cross-objector shows sufficient or reasonable cause for his inability to file the cross-objections within the stipulated period of one month from the date of receipt of the notice of hearing of appeal. No specific reasons have been recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment as to why. the said averments did not find favour and was disbelieved. There is nothing on record to rebut these averments made by the cross-objector.
61. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, to do complete justice between the parties, we allow the landowner's appeal by setting aside the order of the High Court, limited to the extent that the appellants herein have been able H to show sufficient/reasonable cause for grant of further time to MAHADEV GOVIND GHARGE v. SPL. LAO UPPER KRISHNA PROJECT JAMKHANDI, KARNATAKA [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.] file the cross objections beyond the period of one month in terms of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Code. This approach could even be adopted without the aid of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, which provisions may also find application to such matters. Be that as it may, we do not consider it necessary to delve on this issue in any further detail. Suffice it to say that the appellants were entitled to file cross-objections by grant of further time before the High Court. Delay in filing the cross- objections is thus condoned.
62. The High Court has therefore to hear afresh the appeal of the State as also the cross objections of the landowners. In that view of the matter, there is no need of passing a separate order on the appeal filed by the State before this Court and the same is thus disposed of.
63. Since considerable time has elapsed, we request the High Court to dispose of the appeal and the cross objections as early as possible, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order before the High Court.
64. Parties to bear their own costs. B.B.B. Appeals disposed of.