Judgment V.K. Mehrotra, J. 1. THIS application is by the plaintiff-respondents in a Second Appeal for the review of the judgment of this court dated January 3, 1979 by which their suit for the relief of ejectment of the defendant-appellants was dismissed. It had been decreed by the lower appellate court. 2. THE suit had been brought for the ejectment of the defendant-appellants on the ground that they had committed default in payment of rent and had thus rendered themselves liable for ejectment. Further, they were also liable to be ejected from the disputed premises as they had materially altered the accommodation let out to them. THE lower appellate court, in its judgment dated November 5, 1969, took the view that the plaintiffs had failed to establish that the defendants had materially altered the accommodation let out to them. It, however, upheld the decree for the ejectment of the defendants passed by the trial court on its view that the defendants had committed default in the matter of payment of rent. THE defendants filed a Second Appeal assailing the decree for their ejectment. In that appeal a cross-objection under Order 41 rule 22 CPC was filed by the plaintiffs which was registered on March 31, 1970. There is no dispute that the cross-objection was filed within limitation. In this cross-objection, the plaintiffs sought to raise the plea that the finding recorded by the lower appellate court that the defendants had not materially altered the accommodation let out to them was erroneous. They also sought to urge, as is clear from the grounds taken by them in the cross-objection, that a decree for the ejectment of the defendants from the accommodation in suit should also be based on the ground that they had materially altered the accommodation in dispute. 3. AFTER hearing learned counsel for the parties at some length, this court disposed of the Second Appeal by its judgment of January 3, 1979. The appeal was allowed and the decree for the ejectment of the defendants was set aside. When the appeal was heard, the decree of the lower appellate court was not sought to be supported on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants had materially altered the accommodation let out to them. 4. THE present application, as noticed above, is for the review of the judgment of this court allowing the second appeal. When the appeal was heard, the decree of the lower appellate court was not sought to be supported on behalf of the plaintiffs on the ground that the defendants had materially altered the accommodation let out to them. 4. THE present application, as noticed above, is for the review of the judgment of this court allowing the second appeal. It is said that the cross-objection filed by the plaintiffs was not disposed of by this court while disposing of the appeal and that it was a good ground in law for granting review of the judgment passed by the court earlier. Dr. Gyan Prakash, who has appeared in support of the review application, has strenuously contended that the fact that the cross-objection which was filed by the plaintiff-respondents, had not been decided by this court was, by itself, enough to enable him to seek review of the judgment of this court given on the merits of this case. THE submission has been countered on behalf of the defendants on the ground that the cross-objection was not maintainable and as such the mere fact that by inadvertence no formal order disposing it of was passed by this court while deciding the appeal would not enable the plaintiffs to seek the review of the judgment of this court. As noticed earlier, no effort was made to support the decree passed by the lower appellate court on the ground that the defendant-appellants were liable to be ejected from the premises in suit on the ground that they had materially altered the accommodation let out to them. The question which was canvassed before this court, while it was hearing the second appeal, was dealt with and decided by it in the judgment dated January 3, 1979. The lower appellate court recorded a finding, against the plaintiffs, that they had failed to establish that the accommodation in suit had been materially altered by the defendants. The cross-objection is directed against the finding. No appeal was maintainable against a mere finding under the CPC prior to its amendment by Parliament Act No. 104 of 1976-See Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar, AIR 1974 SC 1126 . 5. AS said above, under rule 22 of order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, as it then stood, no cross-objection could be filed by the plaintiffs against a mere finding. 5. AS said above, under rule 22 of order 41 of Code of Civil Procedure, as it then stood, no cross-objection could be filed by the plaintiffs against a mere finding. It is obvious that the cross-objection, which remained un-disposed of in the present case, was not maintainable in law. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that the plaintiffs have made out a good case for the grant of review of the judgment of this court dated January 3, 1979. 6. THE application is dismissed but, in the circumstances of the case, I direct the parties to bear their own costs. Application dismissed.