JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr.Arpit A.Kapadia, learned advocate, for Ms.Shaili A.Kapadia, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the matter is finally heard and decided today. 2. This petition has been filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash and set aside order dated 22.06.2009 passed by the District Court, Surat, whereby Cross-Objections filed by the respondent (original defendant) vide Ex.13, have been allowed. 3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case, emerging from a perusal of the material on record are, that the petitioners, who are the original plaintiffs, preferred Regular Civil Suit No.17 of 2008 before the Principal Civil Judge, Junior Division, Olpad, seeking injunction against the respondent original defendant. Along with the suit, an application for grant of temporary injunction, vide Ex.5, was also filed. In the said suit, the respondent filed his written statement and counter-application for injunction, vide Ex.20. After hearing the parties, the trial Court passed order dated 21.07.2008 on applications at Ex.5 and 20, rejecting the application at Ex.5 of the petitioner, and partly-allowing the application at Ex.20, of the respondent. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner preferred Civil Misc. Appeal No.85 of 2008 before the District Court. The respondent filed Cross-Objections in the said Appeal, vide Ex.13. The petitioners moved a Purshis at Ex.15, for withdrawal of the appeal preferred by them. By the impugned order dated 22.6.2009, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was permitted to be withdrawn and the Cross-Objections filed by the respondent at Ex.13, came to be allowed. It was further ordered, that till the final decision of the suit, the petitioners are restrained from entering into the suit land. 4. Mr.Harshadray A.Dave, learned counsel for the petitioners, has made the following submissions: (i) That the impugned order dated 22.06.2009 is an unreasoned one. The Court has not gone into the merits of the Cross-Objections filed by the respondent, and without hearing the parties or determining the issues involved therein, the said Cross-Objections have been automatically allowed, merely upon withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioners. The Court has not gone into the merits of the Cross-Objections filed by the respondent, and without hearing the parties or determining the issues involved therein, the said Cross-Objections have been automatically allowed, merely upon withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioners. The impugned order has been passed without hearing the parties or deciding the issue on merits and contains no reasons in support of the conclusions arrived at, therefore, the same may be quashed and set aside. (ii) That if the relevant provisions of law, namely Order 41, Rule 22, sub-rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, are perused, it becomes evidently clear that when the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed, the Cross-Objections are required to be heard and determined after issuing notice to the parties whereas, in the present case, there has been no hearing of the Cross-Objections, much less any determination thereof. The impugned order has been passed dehors the provisions of law, and deserves to be quashed and set aside, and the petition allowed. In support of the above submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Manohar - (2005)3 SCC 761 . 5. On the other hand, Mr.Arpit A. Kapadia, learned counsel for the respondent, has sought to defend the impugned order on the ground that the application for injunction at Ex.5 filed by the petitioners has been rejected and the counter-claim of the respondent, at Ex.20, partly-allowed, which means that the Court below was conscious that the possession of the suit land is of the respondent. It is contended that, there is ample material on record, including the order of the Mamlatdar, Olpad, and other documents annexed to the written statement, to show that the possession of the suit land remained with the respondent for the last about 35 years, and in view of the same, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, whereby the Cross-Objections of the respondent have been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that by withdrawing the appeal, the petitioners have waived their right for grant of injunction and the Cross-Objections have rightly been allowed. The learned counsel for the respondent has urged that by withdrawing the appeal, the petitioners have waived their right for grant of injunction and the Cross-Objections have rightly been allowed. That during the pendency of the proceedings and in violation of the order of status-quo, the petitioners had entered into the suit land and taken away the crops grown by the respondent, for which a contempt application has been filed by the respondent, which is still pending and, therefore, the petition may be dismissed. 6. I have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the petition, contents of the impugned order as well as other material on record. 7. The short question which arises in the present petition is whether, upon withdrawal of an Appeal by the appellant, the Cross-Objections preferred by the respondent can be allowed straightaway, without hearing or determination? 8. In order to answer this question, it would be fruitful to advert to the relevant provisions of Order 42, Rule 22, Civil Procedure Code: 22. Upon hearing respondent may object to decree as if he had preferred a separate appeal -- (1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any part of the decree, may not only support the decree but may also state that the finding against him in the Court below in respect of any issue ought to have been in his favour; and may also 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. Explanation A respondent aggrieved by a finding of the Court in the judgment on which the decree appealed against is based may, under this rule, file cross-objection in respect of the decree in so far as it is based on that finding, notwithstanding that by reason of the decision of the Court on any other finding which is sufficient for the decision of the suit, the decree, is, wholly or in part, in favour of that respondent. (2) Form of objection and provisions applicable thereto -- Such cross-objection shall be in the form of a memorandum, and the provisions of rule 1, so far as they relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto. (3) [ omitted ] (4) Where, in any case in which any respondent has under this rule 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... (emphasis supplied) 9. From the above provisions of law, it is abundantly clear that Cross-Objections shall be in the form of a memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1, so far as they relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal, shall apply thereto. A Cross-Objection is, in effect, a cross Appeal. It is in the nature of an appeal. Sub-Rule 4 of Rule 22 of Order 41 provides that, after the original appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, the objections so filed may be heard and determined after such notice to the other parties, as the Court may think fit. As the Cross Objection is like an appeal, and has all the trappings of an appeal, the legal requirement flowing from the relevant provisions referred to above are that it is to be heard and determined after issuance of notice to the other parties, just as in an Appeal. Hearing and determination, which is the process of decision, is an essential requirement of law for deciding a Cross-Objection, just as in the appeal. This requirement cannot be ignored or dispensed with as it is the statutory procedure to be adopted on withdrawal of an appeal. When there is a specific provision in the statute, the Court is bound to adhere to it in letter and spirit. 10. This Court finds that the Court below has neither heard the parties nor determined the issues involved in the Cross-Objections independently, in accordance with law. By the impugned order, the Cross-Objections of the respondent have been automatically allowed upon withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioners. 10. This Court finds that the Court below has neither heard the parties nor determined the issues involved in the Cross-Objections independently, in accordance with law. By the impugned order, the Cross-Objections of the respondent have been automatically allowed upon withdrawal of the appeal by the petitioners. The process of hearing and determination should be discernible from the order itself as justice should not only be done but equally important, seem to be done, which is not the case in the impugned order. The said order is bereft of reasons in support of allowing the Cross-Objections and there is no discussion on the merits of the matter. For the above reasons, the impugned order has been passed dehors the relevant provisions of law. 11. In Superintending Engineer and Others v. B.Subba Reddy (1999) 4 SCC 423 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that Cross-Objections are like an appeal and have all the trappings of an appeal, and are to be filed in the form of memorandum, and the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 of the Code will apply to them. 12. The same principle of law has been reiterated in Hari Shankar Rastogi v. Sham Manohar (supra), where the Supreme Court was deciding the appeal wherein the High Court had dismissed the Cross Objections of the appellant therein, on the withdrawal of the appeal. In the matter on hand, converse is the case. However, the principle of law being the same, the ratio of the above-mentioned judgment will squarely apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The relevant extract of the said judgment is reproduced herein-below: 4. The question whether the cross-objections are maintainable, even when the Appeal has been withdrawn was considered by this Court in Superintending Engineer and Ors. vs. B. Subba Reddy, reported in 1999 (4) SCC 423 . After considering various Judgments, it was held as follows :- (SCC pp.433 34, para 23) "23.From the examination of these judgments and the provisions of Section 41 of the Act and Order 41, Rule 22 of the Code, in our view, the following principles emerge: (1) Appeal is a substantive right. It is a creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred. (2) Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is a creation of the statute. Right to appeal does not exist unless it is specifically conferred. (2) Cross-objection is like an appeal. It has all the trappings of an appeal. It is filed in the form of memorandum and the provisions of Rule 1 of Order 41 of the Code, so far as these relate to the form and contents of the memorandum of appeal apply to cross-objection as well. (3) Court-fee is payable on cross-objection like that on the memorandum of appeal. Provisions relating to appeal by an indigent person also apply to cross-objection. (4) Even where the appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed for default, cross-objection may nevertheless be heard and determined. (5) The respondent even though he has not appealed may support the decree on any other ground but if he wants to modify it, he has to file cross-objection to the decree which objections he could have taken earlier by filing an appeal. Time for filing objection which is in the nature of appeal is extended by one month after service of notice on him of the day fixed for hearing the appeal. This time could also be extended by the court like in appeal. (6) Cross-objection is nothing but an appeal, a cross-appeal at that. It may be that the respondent wanted to give a quietus to the whole litigation by his accepting the judgment and decree and order even if it was partly against his interest. When, however, the other party challenged the same by filing an appeal the statute gave the respondent a second chance to file an appeal by way of cross-objection if he still felt aggrieved by the judgment and decree or order." 5. Thus, it is clear that cross-objection is like an Appeal. It has all the trappings of an Appeal. Even when the Appeal is withdrawn or is dismissed, cross-objection can still be heard and determined. 13. In the light of the legal position and for the reasons stated hereinabove, there is considerable merit in the petition, warranting interference of this Court. The impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. If allowed to stand, it would not only propagate a situation which is not in accordance with law, but would also cause miscarriage of justice. The petition is, therefore, partly-allowed. The impugned order has not been passed in accordance with law. If allowed to stand, it would not only propagate a situation which is not in accordance with law, but would also cause miscarriage of justice. The petition is, therefore, partly-allowed. The order dated 22.06.2009, passed by the District Court, Surat, is quashed and set aside to the extent it allows the Cross-Objections of the respondent. It is clarified, that part of the said order permitting the petitioner to withdraw the appeal is not interfered with. The matter is remanded to the District Court, Surat, for decision on merits, on the Cross-Objections, in accordance with law, after giving a notice to the parties and giving them an opportunity of being heard. Rule is made absolute, to the above extent. There shall be no order as to costs.