TARUN AGARWALA, J. Heard Sri Himanshu Tiwari, the learned Counsel for the appellant and Sri M. K. Gupta, the learned Counsel assisted by Sri Nitin Kumar Agarwal, for the caveators-respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 2. The plaintiff-respondent No. 1 filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from encashing the bank-drafts and from paying the amount as detailed in Schedule-A to the plaint. It was alleged that the plaintiff had purchased six demand drafts from the defendant/appellant bank, which was payable to the present respondent Nos. 2 and 3/defendants, but the said drafts amounting to Rs. 25, 000/- each, were lost and therefore, the suit for prohibitory injunction. 3. An application for temporary injunction was also filed. The Trial Court, initially granted an injunction, restraining the bank from getting the bank drafts encashed. Subsequently, on a stay vacating application filed by re spondent Nos. 2 and 3, the injunction order-was vacated and the injunction ap plication of the plaintiff was rejected with a direction that the bank drafts will be converted by the bank in a F. D. R. in the name of the Court. This interim order continue till the pendency of the suit. Eventually, the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the Trial Court while dismissing the suit directed the bank to release the F. D. R. along with the accruing interest in favour of respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 4. Aggrieved, by the dismissal of the suit, the plaintiff filed a first ap peal before the High Court which was subsequently transferred to the Lower Appellate Court. The appeal was eventually dismissed by judgment dated 15. 11. 2008 and the decree of the Trial Court was affirmed. 5. The defendant Bank has now filed the present second appeal contending that the direction of the Trial Court to pay the interest on the disputed draft amount was perverse and was liable to be set aside. The defendants submitted that the Court without ascertaining itself and without satisfying itself that the disputed draft was not presented for encashment by the defendants for its conversion into F. D. R. , no F. D. R. came into existence and therefore, consequently the direction for payment of interest could not arise. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by the caveators with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. 6. A preliminary objection has been raised by the caveators with regard to the maintainability of the appeal. The caveators submitted that the defen dants-appellant Bank had neither filed a first appeal against the decree of the Trial Court nor had filed any cross-objection with regard to that part of the finding of the Trial Court directing the Bank to get the F. D. Rs. prepared in the name of the Court which decision had become final and therefore, no second appeal could be filed under section 100 of the C. P. C. 7. Having considered the submission of the learned Counsel for the par ties, this Court is of the opinion that the objection raised by the caveators has some force. Nothing prevented the appellant Bank from filing its own appeal or taking cross-objection against that part of the decree of the Trial Court by which it directed the Bank to prepare F. D. R. in the name of the Court. The dismissal of the appeal of the plaintiff has not resulted in any modification or interference in the decree of the Trial Court. The Appellate Court has only af firmed the decree of the Trial Court. In my opinion, on account of the failure of the Bank to file a first appeal against the decree of the Trial Court or to take a cross-objection, the Bank has allowed that part of the decree of the Trial Court to achieve a finality which cannot be allowed to be raised or questioned in a second appeal. Consequently, this Court is of the opinion that the second ap peal filed by the defendant-appellant bank is not maintainable and is dismissed. Appeal Dismissed. .