JUDGMENT S.B Sinha, J. This civil revision arises out of an order dated 4 (5). 12. 1985 passed by Sri Braj Behari Sinha, Sub-Judge, East Champara at Motihari in Title Appeal No. 88 of 1976 whereby and whereunder the said learned court rejected the cross objection filed by the petitioner as being not maintainable. 2. The facts of the case lie in a very narrow compass. 3. He petitioner filed a Suit being Title Suit No. 403/70 _____ 160/75 against the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 in the Court of Muusif, Motihari inter alia for a declaration that the deed of surrender dated 18.11.1959 executed by one Babu Ram Das in favour of the opposite party no. 1 was forged, invalid, inoperative and not binding upon the petitioner (plaintiff). 4. By a judgment and decree dated 26.5.1976, the learned Additional Munsif answered the issue with regard to the genuineness of the aforementioned deed of surrender dated 18.11.1959 in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner but ultimately dismissed the suit inter alia on the ground that the plaintiff has no cause of action therefor. 5. Although an appeal was not maintainable at the instance of the defendants-opposite parties no. 1 and 2 they preferred an appeal in the court of District Judge, East Champaran at Motihari which was registered as Title Appeal No. 88 of 1976. In the said appeal the petitioner filed a cross objection in relation to the aforementioned finding of the learned Additional Munsif that there was no cause for action of the suit. The first appellate court inter alia held that the suit was maintainable and therefore allowed the cross objection filed by the petitioner. The opposite party nos. 1 and 2 thereafter preferred an appeal in this court against the aforementioned judgment and decree dated 14.7.78 passed in Title Appeal No. 88 of 1976 which was marked as Second Appeal No. 525 of 1978. 6. By reason of a judgment dated 24.10.1981 passed by this court while purporting to hold that the said Title Appeal No. 88 of 1976 was not maintainable, remitted the case back to the first appellate court for a fresh decision on the said point. By reason of the impugned judgment the learned first appellate court has held that the cross objection filed by the petitioner was not maintainable inasmuch as the appeal itself has been withdrawn by the opposite party nos. By reason of the impugned judgment the learned first appellate court has held that the cross objection filed by the petitioner was not maintainable inasmuch as the appeal itself has been withdrawn by the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the cross objection is maintainable in terms of Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the said cross objection was bound to be decided by the learned lower appellate court on merits in view of the mandatory provisions contained in Order 41, Rule 22 sub-rule (4) thereof. 8. Mr. Sukumar Sinha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, submitted that a cross objection is maintainable only in an appeal which is maintainable in law. In view of the fact that the entire suit filed by the petitioner was dismissed the decree was not appeal-able at the instance of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2 and in this view of the matter, the question of entertaining any cross objection by the first appellate court in terms of the provisions contained under Order 41 Rule 22 C.P.C. does not arise. 9. The learned counsel in this connection has placed strong reliance upon a decision of the Supreme Court in Smt. Ganga Bai v. Vijay Kumar & Ors. reported in AIR 1974 SC 1126 and a decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in Ram Chand v. Ramku & Ors. reported in AIR 1977 Himachal Pradesh 82. 10. As noticed hereinbefore, the learned Additional Munsif dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that the same was not maintainable although he purported to have decided issue no. 4 i.e. the issue relating to the genuineness or otherwise of the surrender deed dated 18.11.1959 in favour of the plaintiff. It is, thus, evident that no appeal lay at the instance of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. There cannot, therefore, by any doubt whatsoever that the said appeal was not maintainable. 11. In Smt. Ganga Bai's case (supra) the Supreme Court has clearly held that no appeal can be preferred against a mere finding. 12. It is, thus, evident that no appeal lay at the instance of the opposite party nos. 1 and 2. There cannot, therefore, by any doubt whatsoever that the said appeal was not maintainable. 11. In Smt. Ganga Bai's case (supra) the Supreme Court has clearly held that no appeal can be preferred against a mere finding. 12. In the case of Ram Chand (supra) it has been held as follows :- "Order 41 R. 22 of the Civil P.C. provides : "R 22 (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 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. It seems to me that when Or. 41 R. 22 speaks of an appeal it contemplates a valid appeal which ordinarily calls for consideration on its merits. It is such an appeal the pendency of which would entitle the respondent to file a cross objection. An appeal which is barred by time is not such an appeal and it has been so held in Alagappa Chettiar v. Chockalingam Chetty, AIR 1919 MAD. 784 (FB) Lajpat Rai v. Lachman Das, AIR 1920 Lah. 24 (1) Jai Gopal Singh v. Muna Lal, AIR 1924 Lah. 43, Karora Singh v. Kartal Singh, AIR Punjab 170 and Charity Commr v. Padmavati AIR 1956 Bom 86 . In C.P. Mehra v. Sm K.K. Mehra, AIR 1959 All 167 the appeal was not properly constituted, and the Allahabad High Court held that the cross objection did not lie. An appeal which was not maintainable for failure of the appellant to pay the court fee was held incompetent in Kashiram Senu v. Ranglal Motilal Shet, AIR 1911 Bom. 242 and the respondent was held not entitled to maintain a cross objection. An appeal which was not maintainable for failure of the appellant to pay the court fee was held incompetent in Kashiram Senu v. Ranglal Motilal Shet, AIR 1911 Bom. 242 and the respondent was held not entitled to maintain a cross objection. An appeal which was incompetent ab initio was held by the Calcutta High Court in M/s Malhati Tea Syndicate Ltd. v. Revenue Officer Jalpaiguri AIR 1973 Cal 78 to constitute a ground for rejecting the cross objection." 5. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied on Kamat v. Kamat (1884) ILR 8 Bom. 368. The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court seems to have held there that the question whether the appeal filed was maintainable could not affect the validity of the cross objection. It was said that the fact that an appeal had been filed was sufficient Its competence was of no moment. The decision was followed by a learned single Judge of the Punjab Chief Court in Nanak Baksh v. Wazir Singh (1909) 4 Ind Cases 625 (Lah). A Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Shankar Lal v. Saruplal (1912) 13 Ind Cases 19 (All) also adopted that view. In my opinion, the proposition laid down by the Bombay High Court and the Allahabad High Court in Charity Commar. AIR 1956 Bom. 86 (supra) and C.P. Mehra AIR 1959 All 167 (Supra) respectively and the other cases cited earlier should be preferred." 13. As noticed hereinbefore in Ram Chand's case various decisions of different High Courts were taken into consideration and thereafter the said High Court came to the conclusion that a cross objection was bound to be dismissed as being not maintainable as the appeal itself was incompetent. 14. I respectfully agree with the aforementioned decision. In view of the fact that the appeal itself was not maintainable at the instance of opposite party nos. 1 and 2, in my opinion, the question of entertaining any cross objection in the said appeal did not and could not arise. 15. In this view of the matter there is no merit in this application which is accordingly dismissed. However, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case there will be no order as to costs.