JUDGMENT : Rao, J. - The Plaintiff is the Appellant. He filed the suit against the villagers of Foolwar Kasba represented by Defendants 1 to 4 alleging that the mango grove in suit was the Nijdakhal property of the proprietor-Defendant No. 5; that the proprietor settled the same with the Plaintiff in 1945 and granted a lease of the said land by an Amalnama dated 22-3-1945; that since then, the Plaintiff was in possession of the same on payment of Rs. 5.6.0 as rent which he paid for the first time on 11-9-1915 ; that Defendants 1, 2 and 3 in collusion with other litigious people of the village filed a case before the Collector, Misc. Case No. 472 of 1950 falsely alleging that the suit land was a communal land; that they also trespassed on the suit land and cut and removed a mango tree and held out a threat that they would cut more trees and dispossess the Plaintiff; and that consequently the Plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he was a Sthitiban raiyat of the suit land under Defendant No. 5 and for confirmation of his possession or in the alternative for recovery of possession. He also claimed a permanent injunction restraining Defendants 1 to 4 and other villagers from cutting the fences and trees and trespassing into the suit land as also Rs. 30/- as damages from Defendants 1 to 4 for removal of the mango tree. 2. Defendant No. 5 was exparte in the suit. Defendants 1 to 4 in a joint written statement contended that the suit land was a communal land ; that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit; that the allegation that the land was settled with the Plaintiff in 1945 by an Amalnama was false; that no title was acquired by the Plaintiff on the strength of the said Amalnama; that the rent suits obtained by the Plaintiff were all collusive and that the Defendants never cut and removed any tree. 3. The learned Munsif, after trial, came to the conclusion that the suit land was not a communal land but that it was the zamindar's private land. He also found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, but he came to the conclusion that the Amalnama had been antedated and the rent receipts fabricated. 3. The learned Munsif, after trial, came to the conclusion that the suit land was not a communal land but that it was the zamindar's private land. He also found that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to try the suit, but he came to the conclusion that the Amalnama had been antedated and the rent receipts fabricated. He found that the land was as a matter of fact settled with the Plaintiff some time in 1950, but as under the proviso to Section 3 (i) of Act I of 1948 the landlord was entitled to settle the land with any person for a term of two years, the learned Munsif held that the lease was valid for a period of two years although he disallowed the Plaintiff's claim to declare him as a Sthitiban or permanent raiyat of the suit land. Accordingly the Plaintiff's claim for confirmation of his possession and also for injunction restraining the Defendants from interfering with his possession was allowed. 4. Against this judgment and decree, the Defendants filed an appeal and the Plaintiff filed cross-objections in the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal the estate bearing touzi No. 841 passed out of the hands of Defendant No. 5 and vested in the Government of Orissa by Notification No. 2235 E A. dated the 7th September 1953. The State of Orissa through the Anchal Adhikari of Balasore was impleaded in the appeal. Before the first appellate court, the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff's suit should have been dismissed in toto and the Plaintiff contended that it should have been decreed in toto. 5. The learned Subordinate Judge after a lucid and careful discussion of the evidence in the Case confirmed the findings of the learned Munsif that the suit land was not a communal land as also that the suit land was a private land of Defendant No. 5. He also held that the Plaintiff's claim was not only not contested by the landlord, but that it was supported by him and that the landlord's successor the State of Orissa who had been impleaded in the appeal did not also contest the Plaintiff's claim that it was a private land. He also held that the Plaintiff's claim was not only not contested by the landlord, but that it was supported by him and that the landlord's successor the State of Orissa who had been impleaded in the appeal did not also contest the Plaintiff's claim that it was a private land. The lower appellate Court after referring to the evidence in the case agreed with the finding of the learned Munsif that the suit land was the proprietor's private land as defined in the Orissa Tenancy Act. It did not accept the finding of the learned Munsif that the Amalnama was not genuine and the rent receipts collusive. It pointed out where the learned Munsif erred and after a careful analysis of the evidence in the Case came to the conclusion that the Amalnama was genuine as also the rent receipts. It also agreed with the learned Munsif that the Amalnama Ext. 1 was an agricultural lease and did not require registration, and that the Civil Court had jurisdiction. 6. Having found on all these issues in favour of the Plaintiff, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that he could not grant any relief to the Plaintiff as cross-Appellant as the learned Munsif came to the conclusion that the suit land was settled with the Plaintiff some time in 1950 and that conclusion could not be challenged in appeal by the Plaintiff as the State of Orissa was not impleaded as a party to the memorandum of cross-objections filed by the Plaintiff in the appeal filed by the Defendants. 7. Mr. G.K. Misra, the learned Counsel for the Appellant rightly contends that In this the learned Subordinate Judge fell into an error. According to him, it is not necessary that he should implead parties in his memorandum of cross-objections. The State of Orissa was impleaded as a Respondent in the appeal filed by the Defendants in which appeal he filed the memorandum of cross-objection. As such, according to his contention, it is not necessary for him to specifically implead the State of Orissa. The appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court on 21-4-1953. The Plaintiff filed the cross-objections on 8-8-1953. The application for adding the State of Orissa was filed on 21-1-1954 by the Appellant before the lower appellate Court. As such, according to his contention, it is not necessary for him to specifically implead the State of Orissa. The appeal was filed before the lower appellate Court on 21-4-1953. The Plaintiff filed the cross-objections on 8-8-1953. The application for adding the State of Orissa was filed on 21-1-1954 by the Appellant before the lower appellate Court. The Anchal Adhikari on behalf of the State was served with notice on 26.2-1954 and the appeal proceeded exparte against him. Order 41, Rule 22 of the CPC says, 1. Any Respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the grounds decided against him in the Court below, but take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within one month from objection in the Appellate Court within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow. 2. Such cross-objection shall be in the form of a memorandum, and the provisions of Rule 1, so far as they relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto. 3. Unless the Respondent files with the objection a written acknowledgment from the party who may be affected by such objection or his pleader of having received a copy thereof, the Appellate Court shall cause a copy to be served, as soon as may be after the filing of the objection, on such party or his pleader at the expense of the Respondent. X X X X X X From Clause (3) of Order 41, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, it is clear that if the Respondent filing cross-objections does not give notice beforehand to the party who may be affected by such objection or his pleader, the Appellate Court shall cause a copy to be served on such party or his pleader at the expense of the Respondent filing the cross-objections. In this appeal, as already noted, the cross-objections were filed before the State of Orissa was impleaded in the appeal. Consequently the Plaintiff had then no opportunity of giving notice to the State of Orissa. In this appeal, as already noted, the cross-objections were filed before the State of Orissa was impleaded in the appeal. Consequently the Plaintiff had then no opportunity of giving notice to the State of Orissa. After the State of Orissa was impleaded through the Anchal Adhikari, under Clause (3) of Order 41, Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure, the Court should have ordered notice of the memorandum of cross-objections to the State of Orissa. It should not have dismissed the cross-objections on the ground that the State of Orissa was not impleaded as a party to the memorandum of cross-objections. It is not necessary that the State of Orissa should be so impleaded as at that time it was not a party to the suit. Defendant No. 5 was a Respondent. As soon as the estate vested in the State, the State should have intervened as a party. The Appellant himself filed an application that the State should be made a party and it was made a party after the memorandum of cross-objections was filed. Under such circumstances, in my opinion, the Court should have directed the Plaintiff cross-Appellant to give notice to the State who did not put in appearance after receipt of notice of appeal and was made exparte. 8. Mr. Asok Das on behalf of the Respondents contended that the State of Orissa should have been made a party, but not the Government of Orissa represented by the Anchal Adhikari. In the Second Appeal the State of Orissa Was impleaded through the Anchal Adhikari, Mr. Asok Das contends that where the State is a necessary party, the cause-title would show only State of Orissa and nothing else. I cannot accept his contention. There is nothing wrong in saying that the State of Orissa represented by the Collector or represented by the Anchal Adhikari is the Respondent. The requirements of law are satisfied if the Respondent is described as such and are in no way violated. The objection taken by Mr. Asok Das, in my opinion, is too technical. 9. In my opinion, therefore, for the reasons stated above, the learned Subordinate Judge committed an error in law in dismissing the cross-objections saying that the State of Orissa was not impleaded in the cross-objections as a Respondent. I would therefore set aside his order. He has found all the other points in favour of the Plaintiff. 9. In my opinion, therefore, for the reasons stated above, the learned Subordinate Judge committed an error in law in dismissing the cross-objections saying that the State of Orissa was not impleaded in the cross-objections as a Respondent. I would therefore set aside his order. He has found all the other points in favour of the Plaintiff. But inasmuch as the State of Orissa who was not served with notice of the cross-objections which the Court ought to have done, I would remand the appeal for further disposal according to law after notice of the memorandum of cross-objections is served upon the State. Costs will abide the result. Appeal remanded. Final Result : Allowed