Judgment :- 1. Defendant is the appellant. Plaintiff's (respondent's) suit for recovery of money on the strength of two chitty transactions was partly allowed by the Munsiff and the plaintiff was granted a decree for a sum of Rs.420/- with interest thereon. Plaintiff filed A.S.100 of 1980 before the Sub Court, Kottarakkara, Cross objection was filed by the defendant. When the appeal and cross objection were taken for hearing counsel appearing for the plaintiff reported no instructions and consequently the appeal was dismissed. Defendant's counsel argued the cross objection and the learned Sub Judge dismissed it. 2. Contention of the defendant is that the Sub Judge was not justified in hearing the cross-objection when the appeal was dismissed for default. Learned counsel submitted that when the appeal was subsequently restored the Sub Judge ought to have re-heard the cross-objection also along with the appeal and as that has not been done the defendant is seriously prejudiced. It is argued by him that when the appeal filed by the plaintiff which was dismissed for default was restored to file and heard again the cross objection also ought to have been heard again along with the appeal. There is no merit in the above contention as there is no provision in the Civil Procedure Code to adopt such a procedure. 3. Order XLI R.22(4) specifically provides that where in any case in which any respondent has filed a memorandum of objection, the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objection so filed may nevertheless be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties as the Court thinks fit. When an appeal is dismissed for default or withdrawn the fate of the cross objection is not sealed thereby. Even when an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default the Court has to hear the cross objection and dispose of it in accordance with law. In other words, cross objection will have to be heard despite the dismissal of the appeal for default. Once an appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default and the cross objection has been heard and decided on merit restoration of the appeal and re-hearing of the appeal would not automatically warrant a re-hearing of the cross objection. 4. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the Sub Judge ought to have issued notice to the parties as provided under 0.41 R.22(4). 4. Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the Sub Judge ought to have issued notice to the parties as provided under 0.41 R.22(4). As the cross-objection was dismissed there cannot be any valid objection for the plaintiff that he was not given notice when it was heard. As the appeal and cross-objection were taken for hearing on the same day and as the plaintiff's counsel submitted no instructions there was really no necessity to issue further notice to the parties directly. 5. Learned Sub Judge has allowed the appeal when it was re-heard and the plaintiff was given a decree to realise Rs.840/- with 6% interest on the principal amount of Rs.750/-. The Sub Judge held that mere production of some audit report by an advocate's clerk is of no avail as against the consequences that flow from not paying the prized subscriber of the prize amount. There is no merit in the Second Appeal. The Second Appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.