Judgment N.K.Moby, J. ( 1. ) BEING aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 06/07/ 2007 passed by I Additional District Judge, West Nimar, Mandleshwar in civil suit No. 2-A/2004 whereby the suit filed by the respondent No. 1 was decreed and appellants were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 91,960/- along with interest @ 8% per annum and also on account of damages of Rs. 5,000/-, the present appeal has been filed. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that respondent No. 1/Jaswant Singh filed a suit on 06/05/2004 for declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant alleging that respondent was having Oil Mill at Nageshwar Marg, Maheshwar, Khargone for which electricity connection was given to respondent which was for industrial category. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 converted the business and has started the industry of Wheat Gridding for which respondent No.1 got sanctioned the electricity connection of 25 HP. It was alleged that industry of Wheat Gridding was registered by District Industries Centre, Khargone, It was alleged that on 10/10/2003 Vigilance Department of appellant made a surprise inspection and a Panchanama was prepared on spot, thereafter, a bill of difference was issued for a sum of Rs.91,960/- holding that the tariff which is applicable to the respondent No. 1 is of commercial category and is not of industrial category. In the suit it was prayed that it be declared that connection to wheat grinding mill be declared as connection of industrial category and not of commercial category and the demand raised be declared as illegal and permanent injunction was also prayed to the effect that appellant be restrained from recovering the alleged electrical charges. Later-on the suit was amended vide amendment dated 13/12/2005 whereby it was alleged that respondent No. 1 has deposited the amount of bill Rs.91,960/- under protest. It was also prayed that a decree be passed against appellant for refund of bill amount of Rs.91,960/-. ( 3. ) The suit was contested by appellant on various grounds including on the ground that looking to the nature of business which is being carried out by respondent No. I, the electricity connection comes in commercial category and not in industrial category, therefore, bill was rightly issued and amount has already been deposited by respondent No. 1 which cannot be refunded. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. It was prayed that the suit be dismissed. After framing of the issues and recording of evidence, learned Court below decreed the suit against which the present appeal has been filed. ( 4. ) Mr. Surjeet Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the tariffs are being framed by M.P. State Electricity Regulation Commission in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 of the M.P. Vidut Sudhar Adhiniyam, 2000. It is submitted that vide order dated 30/11/2002 the Regulation Commission issued the tariff according to which the industrial tariffs are applicable to those industries and workshops where manufacturing, takes place i.e. conversion from raw material to finished goods which are registered with Industries Department as industrial units and also converted under the Factories Act, 1948. It is submitted that since respondent No.l was running the unit in commercial category, therefore, industrial category was not applicable on the respondent No.l. It is submitted that learned Court below found that commercial category is applicable to respondent No.l but inspite of that learned Court below granted a decree against the appellant. It is also submitted that respondent No. 1 has wrongly got the electricity connection in industrial category while unit of respondent No.l was of commercial in nature. ( 5. ) Mr. R. C. Chhazed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that learned Court below committed error in holding that the category of connection which is the respondent No. 1 was having was commercial in nature. It is submitted that the industry of respondent No.l was registered with the District Industries Centre, Khargone and provisions of Factories Act was also applicable on the industry of respondent No. 1. It is submitted that no enquiry was held by appellant before converting the connection of respondent No. 1 into a commercial category from the industrial category. It is also submitted that since electricity connection of respondent No. 1 was checked by the appellant from time to time and bills were issued and which were regularly deposited by respondent No. 1, therefore, there was no occasion on the part of appellant to issue electricity bill for payment of difference of amount. It is submitted that learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. ( 6. It is submitted that learned Court below has rightly decreed the suit filed by respondent No. 1. It is submitted that appeal filed by the appellant be dismissed. ( 6. ) Facing to this, counsel for appellant submits that even if certificate has been issued by District Industrial Centre, Khargone, then too, it will not improve the case of respondent No.l. It is also submitted that respondent No.l cannot be allowed to challenge any of the findings of learned Court below because no cross objection or appeal has been filed by respondent No. 1. Learned counsel for appellant submits that even if industry of respondent No. 1 is registered by District Industrial Centre, Khargone, then too, it will not affect the right of appellant because different statutes and different statutory regulations or rules may have different definitions of various expressions. Definition in one statute or statutory rule cannot be applied in the context of another statute or statutory rule. ( 7. ) Mr. R.C. Chhazed, learned counsel for the respondent No. 1 submits that since no decree was against the respondents and it is only the finding of one issue against respondent No.l, therefore, respondent No.l is having all the rights to challenge the findings in an appeal filed by appellant without filing any cross objection or cross appeal. Reliance is placed on a decision in the matter of Banarsi Vs. Ram Phal (2003) 9 SCC 606 wherein the Honble Apex Court has considered this aspect of the matter at length and held as under :-The CPC amendment of 1976 has not materially or substantially altered the law except for a marginal difference. Even under the amended Order 41 Rule 22 sub-rule (1) a party in whose favour the decree stands in its entirety is neither entitled nor obliged to prefer any cross-objection. However, the insertion made in the text of sub- rale (1) makes it permissible to file a cross-objection against a finding. The difference which has resulted we will shortly state. A respondent may defend himself without filing any cross-objection to the extent to which decree is in his favour; however, if he proposes to attack any part of the decree he must take cross-objection. The amendment inserted by the 1976 amendment is clarificatory and also enabling and this may be made precise by analysing the provision. A respondent may defend himself without filing any cross-objection to the extent to which decree is in his favour; however, if he proposes to attack any part of the decree he must take cross-objection. The amendment inserted by the 1976 amendment is clarificatory and also enabling and this may be made precise by analysing the provision. There may be three situations :- (i) The impugned decree is partly in favour of the appellant and partly in favour of the respondent. (ii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent though an issue has been decided against the respondent. (iii) The decree is entirely in favour of the respondent and all the issues have also been answered in favour of the respondent but there is a finding in the judgment which goes against the respondent. In the type of case (i) it was necessary for the respondent to file an appeal or take cross-objection against that part of the decree which is against him if he seeks to get rid of the same though that part of the decree which is in his favour he is entitled to support without taking any cross-objection. The law remains so post-amendment too. In the type of cases (ii) and (iii) pre-amendment CPC did not entitle nor permit the respondent to take any cross-objection as he was not the person aggrieved by the decree. Under the amended CPC, read in the light of the explanation, though it is still not necessary for the respondent to take any cross-objection laying challenge to any finding adverse to him as the decree is entirely in his favour and he may support the decree without cross-objection; the amendment made in the text of sub-rule (1), read with the explanation newly inserted, gives him a right to take cross-objection to a finding recorded against him either while answering an issue or while dealing with an issue. The advantage of preferring such cross-objection is spelled out by sub-rule (4). In spite of the original appeal having been withdrawn or dismissed for default the cross-objection taken to any finding by the respondent shall still be available to be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent under the unamended CPC. The advantage of preferring such cross-objection is spelled out by sub-rule (4). In spite of the original appeal having been withdrawn or dismissed for default the cross-objection taken to any finding by the respondent shall still be available to be adjudicated upon on merits which remedy was not available to the respondent under the unamended CPC. In the pre-amendment era, the withdrawal of dismissal for default of the original appeal disabled the respondent to question the correctness or otherwise of any finding recorded against the respondent. ( 8. ) In view of the aforesaid position of law, it appears that respondent No. 1 is having a right to challenge the finding in an appeal filed by appellant without filing any cross objection or cross appeal. ( 9. ) From perusal of record, it appears that the industry of the respondent No. 1 was registered as a small scale industry by District Industries Centre, Khargone. The electricity connection was also provided to the respondent No. 1 under the industrial category. Respondent No.l was also regularly depositing the electricity bills which were being issued to the respondent No.l by appellant from time to time. Vigilance Department in inspection also did not found any irregularity or illegality on the part of respondent No. 1. Appellant was also at liberty to convert the connection of respondent No. 1 in commercial category. If the Vigilance Department of appellant were of the view that connection of respondent No. 1 which has been given under industrial category is required to be converted into commercial category then too in the interest of justice, it was necessary on the part of appellant to issue notice and after giving an opportunity of hearing to respondent No. 1 pass a reasoned order. Without doing anything only after inspection difference of electricity charges for last two years treating the electricity connection of respondent No.l in commercial category cannot be issued. In view of this, no illegality was committed by the learned Court below in decreeing the suit filed by the respondent No. 1. ( 10. ) In view of this, appeal stands dismissed. No order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.