( 1 ) THE suit filed by the petitioner for recovery of certain amounts or in, the alternative to render accounts was decreed against the first defendant. The allegations made against the second defendant was that he guaranteed the liability of the first defendant under an instrument of guarantee- ex. P1-dt. 16-8-1968. Suffice it to say, there was no decree against the second defendant. The decree dt. 5-1-1971 states that the amount due from the first defendant shall be determined by considering his accounts. ( 2 ) THE first defendant appealed before the Court of the District judge, Bangalore. The appeal was preferred within the period of limitation. The respondent-plaintiff, after receipt of notice of the appeal, filed cross-objections under Or. 41, Rule 22 CPC. , along with I. A.-III to implead the second defendant as a party-respondent to the appeal. The said applicatoin was filed on 1-10-1971. The appellate Judge, by the order under revision dismissed the said application stating that it was entirely misconceived. ( 3 ) THE question whether a respondent could by way of cross-objections seek relief against another person who is not a party to the appeal, falls for decision in this revision petition. ( 4 ) THE question raised presents me little difficulty in view of the series of decisions of other High Courts and also that of the supreme Court. Sri Venkatachala, learned Counsel for the petitioner relied upon two decisions of the Madras High Court (i) Guzulu Devendra ayyar v. P. C. Muthu Chettiar, AIR 1938 Mad. 329 , (ii) M. Krishnaswami Naidu v. Secretary of State represented by Collector of Tanjavore, AIR 1943 Mad. 15. The view taken in those decisions cannot be pressed into service in view of the later Full bench decision of the same High Court in Vadlamudi Venkateswarulu v. Ravipati Ramamma, AIR 1960 Mad. 379. On the scope of Or. 41, Rule 22 CPC. , Rajamannar, CJ. , after reviewing all the previous decisions of that Court and also referring to several decisions of the other High Courts said thus :"the legislature by describing the objection which could be taken by the respondent as a 'cross-objection' must have deliberately adopted the view of the other High Courts. One cannot treat an objection by a respondent in which the appellant has no interest as a cross-objection. The appeal is by the appellant against a respondent. One cannot treat an objection by a respondent in which the appellant has no interest as a cross-objection. The appeal is by the appellant against a respondent. The cross-objection must be an objection by a respondent against the appellant. "the above view was appoved by the Supreme Court in Panna Lal v. State of Bombay, AIR 1963 SC 1516 , wherein Das Gupta, J. , after quoting the above passage, at page 1520, said :"we think, with respect, that these observations put the matter clearly and correctly. That the legislature also wanted to give effect to the views held by the different High Courts that in exceptional cases as mentioned above an objection can be preferred by a respondent against a co-respondent is indicated by the substitution of the word 'appellant' in the third paragraph by the words the party who may be affected by such objection ". ( 5 ) SRI Venkatachala, however urged that the liability of both the defendants are intermixed with each other and therefore, the cross-objections may be filed by impleading the second defendant as a, party-respondent in the appeal. I have already stated that the trial Court has not passed any preliminary decree against the scond defendant. That being the position, I fail to see how it could be said that the liability under the dercee against the defendants are inter-mixed. ( 6 ) THERE is one other obstacle for the petitioner. The second defendant is not a party-respondent in the appeal. The time for preferring appeal against him was already barred on that date when the cross-objection was filed. The plaintiff-respondent by adopting a device to implead him as a respondent cannot be permitted to file the cross-objection under order 41, Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code. ( 7 ) ON the facts of the present case, I think that the view taken by the appellate Judge was correct and it does not call for interference in this revision petition. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but no order as to costs. --- *** --- .