(1) WE have heard learned counsel for the parties. The short question is as to the admissibility of the cross-objection under the provisions of the Uttar Pradesh Nagar Mahapalika Adhiniyam, 1959 where an appeal against quantum has been filed and the respondent has not preferred an appeal. We have looked into the provisions of S. 377, 379 and 381 of the Act and are inclined to take the view that the provision of Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure would be inconsistent with the provisions of the Act inasmuch as an appeal is admissible only by a certificate or special leave as provided in provisions (a) and (b) respectively of S. 381(1). It is difficult to contend that a cross-objection is anything other than an appeal as generally understood in law. In the circumstances, benefit of S. 377 or of Ss. (4) of S. 381 of the Act is not available. The appeal therefore fails. There is no order as to costs.