JUDGMENT I.B. Singh, Member - This is plaintiff's second appeal against judgment and decree dated October 28, 1974 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Jhansi Division, Jhansi allowing appeal No. 51/108 of 1972 against judgment and decree dated September 25, 1972 passed by S.D.O. Karwi district Banda dismissing the suit of the plaintiff and ordering removal of the name of the defendant recorded in varg 9 of the disputed plots. In appeal this order for removal of Varg-9 entry in the name of the defendant was set aside. The plaintiffs had not appealed but had filed cross-objection which was dismissed on the ground that as the plaintiff's suit was dismissed and he had not filed the appeal, his cross-objection was not entertain able. 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 3. It was argued that the cross-objection was maintainable as provided by Order XLI, Rule 22 of the C.P.C. The lower appellate court committed mistake in not deciding it and wrongly dismissed it as not maintainable. 4. It was argued in reply that as the plaintiff's suit was dismissed in to and he did not file appeal, the cross-objection was not maintainable and that the trial court had committed mistake in ordering removal of the name of the defendant, therefore, the first appeal was rightly allowed. 5. Order XLI, Rule 22 of C.P.C. runs as follows: - "22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. 5. Order XLI, Rule 22 of C.P.C. runs as follows: - "22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred separate appeal. (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour, and may also 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 the date of service on him or his pleader of notice of the day fixed for time as the appellate court may see fit to allow." In this rule it is provided that the respondent's cross-objection is to be treated almost an appeal by him, even though he had not filed appeal from any part of the decree and he may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour, and may also take any cross-objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal, therefore, the lower appellate court erroneously held that as he had not appealed his cross-objection was not maintainable. This rule starts with that, "any respondent though he may not have appealed," is entitled to file cross-objection and lays down that he may not only support the decree but may take any cross-objection which he could have taken by way of appeal. Rule 22(4) which runs as follows: - "Where in any case in which any respondent has under this rule filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the court thinks fit." Lays down that even if the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed in default the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the court thinks fit. Thus this sub-rule further lays down that the cross-objection has to be heard and has to be decided even if the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default. 6. Thus this sub-rule further lays down that the cross-objection has to be heard and has to be decided even if the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default. 6. Thus it is clear that the lower appellate court erroneously rejected the cross-objection as not maintainable, therefore, this appeal is liable to be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is liable to he set aside. 7. In view of the above, this appeal is hereby allowed with costs. The judgment and decree passed by the lower appellate court is set aside and the first appeal is remanded for being decided along with cross-objection of the present appellant respondent of the first appeal after hearing the parties.