B. P. SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THESE two Second Appeals arise out of two suits, one for partition and certain other reliefs, and the other for injunction. These two suits were heard together and disposed of by a common judgment. In view of the order, which I propose to make, it is not necessary for me to refer to the detailed facts of the case. I shall, therefore, only state those facts which are necessary. ( 2 ) O. S. No. 60/74 was filed by the plaintiffs for partition of joint family properties as also for declaration that the alienation made by defendant Nos. 1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 of the suit land on 10-12-1970 and the subsequent sale made by defendant No. 4 in favour of defendant No. 5 on 16-6-1972, were not binding upon them. It may be observed that the defendant No. 1 is the brother of plaintiff No. 1. The plaintiff; no. 3 is the mother of plaintiff No. 2. The trial court partly decreed the suit inasmuch as it granted relief to plaintiff No. 1 the brother of defendant No. 1, and declared his share in the family properties. Further, the learned Munsiff held that the alienation made by defendants-1 to 3 in favour of defendant No. 4 was not supported by legal necessity and therefore not binding upon plaintiff No. 1. The trial Court refused to grant relief to plaintiff Nos. 2 and 3 on the ground that they are the son and wife of defendant No. 1. ( 3 ) AGGRIEVED by the Judgment and decree of the trial Court in O. S. No. 60/74, the plaintiffs 2 and 3 preferred an appeal being R. A. No. 14/77. This appeal was filed before the Court of Civil judge, Bijapur. Notices were issued in the appeal and were served upon defendants-4 and 5 and they filed cross objection under Order 41, rule 22 CPC. ( 4 ) THE other suit being O. S. No. 21/74, was filed by the Vendor and others against the Vendees praying for an injunction on the ground that though a sale deed has been executed, the vendor retained the possession of the land sold. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court. ( 4 ) THE other suit being O. S. No. 21/74, was filed by the Vendor and others against the Vendees praying for an injunction on the ground that though a sale deed has been executed, the vendor retained the possession of the land sold. This suit was dismissed by the trial Court. But, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffs of that suit, which was registered as Regular Appeal No. 2/77 in the Court of Civil Judge, Bijapur. ( 5 ) THE learned Civil Judge by his impugned Judgment and decree, allowed both the appeals, but held that the cross-objections preferred by defendants-4 and 5 could not be gone into because notices of the cross-objection were not served upon the other parties. ( 6 ) THE Counsel for the appellants contended that the Court below erred in law in not considering the cross-objection filed by the appellants herein, (defendants-4 and 5 in the suit) and that vitiated the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge. ( 7 ) IT is not in dispute that the cross-objection was filed on behalf of respondents-4 and 5 in the Court below on 7-4-1977. It has not been held that the cross-objection was filed beyond the period prescribed by law, but it has been held that no notice of the cross-objection was served on the other parties, and therefore such cross- objection could not be entertained. ( 8 ) FROM the order sheet of the Court below, it appears that the cross objection was filed on 7-4-1977. The Court in its order sheet has noticed the fact that the cross-objection has been filed. There is no further order directing issuance of notice to the other parties. It appears that the matter remained, un-attended, and in the absence of any further direction by the Court, notices in relation to the cross-objection were not issued to the other parties. When the appeal came up for hearing, an objection was taken by the respondents that in the absence of notice to them, the cross-objection could not be entertained. That objection has been upheld, and the cross-objection has been rejected. When the appeal came up for hearing, an objection was taken by the respondents that in the absence of notice to them, the cross-objection could not be entertained. That objection has been upheld, and the cross-objection has been rejected. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the appellant scontended before me, that Order 41, Rule 22 (3) of the Code of Civil Procedure enjoins upon the appellate Court the duty to cause a copy of the cross-objection to be served on the party who will be affected by such objection. No doubt, the expenses have to be borne by the respondents who prefer such cross-objection. According to him, in the instant case, since no order was passed by the Court for issuance of notice on the cross- objection, the necessary process fee etc. , could not be deposited. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents contends that the learned civil Judge was right in holding that the respondents who had preferred the cross-objection had failed to take necessary steps, and for their failure to do so the cross-objection necessarily had to be rejected in the absence of notice to the affected parties. ( 10 ) THE provisions of Order 41, Rule 22 (3), to my mind are not ambiguous and therefore, there is no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that once the respondent files his cross-objection, it is for the Court to issue notice of the cross- objection to the affected parties. The notice has to be effected at the expense of the concerned respondent. The procedure which is envisaged in Order 41, Rule 22 (3) CPC, is that after cross- objection has been filed by the respondent, and the Court is satisfied that it ought not to be rejected at that stage for any other reason, such as limitation etc. , the Court must pass an order directing issuance of notice to the affected parties. After such an order is passed by the Court, the concerned respondent must take necessary steps to deposit the process fee etc. If the concerned respondent fails to take necessary steps, then the cross-objection is liable to be dismissed. , the Court must pass an order directing issuance of notice to the affected parties. After such an order is passed by the Court, the concerned respondent must take necessary steps to deposit the process fee etc. If the concerned respondent fails to take necessary steps, then the cross-objection is liable to be dismissed. In the instant case, the question arises as to whether the respondents in the appeal before the civil Judge can be said to be in default, having regard to the fact that the Court did not pass any order for issuance of notices of cross-objection to the affected parties in the appeal. In my view, Order 41, Rule 22 (3) of CPC, employs a language which is only consistent with the view that it is the duty of the Appellate Court to order issuance of notices to the affected parties when cross objection is filed by any of the respondents. The words used are "the Appellate Court shall cause a copy to be served. " When the learned civil Judge, has recorded the fact in the Order sheet that cross objection has been filed, he should have passed an order for issuance of notices to the affected parties. It appears that by inadvertance such an order was not passed. It is well settled that the mistake of the Court ought not to prejudicially affect the rights on any party. In the instant case, the learned Civil Judge having failed to pass such an order, the respondents could not take further steps such as filing of spare copies, process fee etc. In my view, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Civil Judge, ought to have directed issuance of notices to the parties, when it was brought to his notice that no notices had been issued regarding filing of cross-objection. The approach of the learned Civil Judge appears to be highly technical to the extent that it defeats the cause of justice. It is well settled that procedural law is the handmaid of justice, and requirements of procedure should not be so technically construed as to defeat the substantive rights of the litigant. The approach of the learned Civil Judge appears to be highly technical to the extent that it defeats the cause of justice. It is well settled that procedural law is the handmaid of justice, and requirements of procedure should not be so technically construed as to defeat the substantive rights of the litigant. ( 11 ) I may notice two decisions cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents before me in support of the proposition that if a party files a cross-objection and fails to take steps in the matter of service of notice upon affected parties, the cross-objection must be rejected on that ground alone. In the cases of Ram Narian v Lt. Col. Hari Singh and Another, AIR 1964 Rajasthan, page 76 and Nageshwar Prasad Singh vr. B. Kashinath Singh, ILR 1937 Patna, page 1375 it has been held that if the party concerned, does not take steps for service of notice, the cross- objection has to be dismissed. The facts in these cases are not clear, and it is not known whether after the Court had passed an order for issuance of notice, the concerned respondent failed to take necessary steps. The proposition that the concerned respondent must take necessary steps, cannot be disputed. The question, however is, whether for failure of the Court to pass an appropriate order regarding issuance of notice, it can be said that the concerned respondent has failed to take necessary steps. In the instant case, having regard to the facts of the case, I have no doubt, that the learned Civil Judge ought to have passed an order for issuance of notices to the affected parties. Thereafter, if the concerned respondents did not take necessary steps, he would have been justified in dismissing the cross- objection. In this view of the matter, the Judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil judge, in R. A. No. 14/1977 and in R. A. No. 2/1977 are set aside. The appeals are remanded to the Learned Civil Judge, Bijapur, who shall after giving notice of the cross-objection to the affected parties, hear the appeals afresh and pass judgment and decree in accordance with law. It is made clear, that all contentions are left open to the parties, including the contention that the cross-objection is not maintainable. The appeals are remanded to the Learned Civil Judge, Bijapur, who shall after giving notice of the cross-objection to the affected parties, hear the appeals afresh and pass judgment and decree in accordance with law. It is made clear, that all contentions are left open to the parties, including the contention that the cross-objection is not maintainable. I have expressed no opinion on this question, but the learned Civil Judge will decide this question in accordance with law if raised before him. These appeals are allowed accordingly. There will be no order as to the costs. ( 12 ) IN the presence of the learned Counsel, the parties are directed to appear before the court of Civil Judge, Bijapur, on 3rd of December, 1990. The learned Civil Judge, shall pass appropriate directions regarding steps to be taken. Appeals allowed. --- *** --- .