JUDGMENT 1. Learned senior counsel for the appellant at the outset made a prayer for withdrawal of this appeal. 2. On the other hand, Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.3 has submitted that he has filed his cross-objection on 26.6.2006 vide I.A No. 5186/2006 and, therefore, the same is maintainable and the same may be decided separately. 3. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance of contract and possession on 23.7.1998 in respect of an area of 8.92 acres of survey No. 67 to 72,80 to 82, 85, 89 and 90 to 93 of village Gadrakhedi, Tahsil and District Indore, on the ground that the appellant-Kamla Nehru Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Mariyadit Indore had executed an agreement for sale of the said land with Shri Shashi S/o. Ramchandra Godbole at the rate of Rs. 21,000/- per acre. It is also averred that the total amount of consideration was Rs. 1,87,320/- out of which Rs. 1000/- was paid at the time of execution of the agreement and rest of the amount would be paid within a period of two years from the date of execution of the agreement. It is also averred that at the time of execution of agreement possession was delivered. From the averment made in the plaint, it is not in dispute that suit land was originally owned by Smt. Manorama Khasgiwal. She died on 8.3.1974. No written statement was filed by the respondent No.4. As per order sheet dated 8.5.2004 statement was made by the respondent No.4 -- Sheetalshwar Grih Nirman Sahakari Sanstha Mariyadit, Indore that society does not want to file any written statement. Later on they filed an application on 31.8.04 that respondent No.4 society wants to file written statement which was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 21.12.2004. 4. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record gave a finding that suit for specific performance was not filed during the life time of Smt. Shashi Godbole and only a suit for permanent injunction was filed against the said Smt. Godbole. It is also held that Smt. Shashi Godbole vide Exhibit P/21 denied the execution of agreement. It is also held that Smt. Shashi Godbole vide Exhibit P/21 denied the execution of agreement. On 8.4.1988 she gave a notice for cancellation of agreement and held that on 8.4.1988 the plaintiff society came to know about cancellation of agreement but in spite of that they could not file the suit within a period of three years from the said date and the suit was filed after a period of more than ten years on 23.7.1998. 5. In view of the Article 54 a suit for specific performance is to be filed within three years from the date fixed for performance or the date when the plaintiff had the notice of issuance. By the impugned judgment the trial Court gave a finding that the appellant-plaintiff got notice from the seller but inspite of that the appellant did not file the suit for specific performance within period of three years from the date of notice. The suit was dismissed as barred by limitation. 6. In this appeal show cause notice against the admission was issued on 16.2.2006. As per record notice was served to the respondent No.4 on 28.2.2006. 7. Shri S.M. Dagaonkar, learned counsel for the respondent No.4 gave his appearance on 6.3.2006. Against the defendant No.4 the suit has been wholly dismissed. On 26.6.2006 he has filed a cross objection vide IANo. 5186/2006. The cross objection is to be filed in the form of memo within one month from the date of service of notice on him. The cross objection has been filed against the finding recorded in paragraphs 15.16 of the impugned judgment. The trial Court in para 12 of the impugned judgment has given a finding that the possession of the suit land was delivered by so called seller Smt. Shashi Godbole S/o Ramchandra Godbole on 31.8.1982. The trial Court decided the issue No.2 against the appellant and dismissed the suit on merit by holding that appellant is not entitled for any possession of the suit land. As per impugned judgment the ultimate decision in the suit goes in favour of the respondents. 8. The first part of Rule 22 of Order 41, CPC authorizes the respondent No.4 to support the decree not only on the ground decided in his favour but also on any grounds against him. As per impugned judgment the ultimate decision in the suit goes in favour of the respondents. 8. The first part of Rule 22 of Order 41, CPC authorizes the respondent No.4 to support the decree not only on the ground decided in his favour but also on any grounds against him. But if he wants to challenge the decree he has to file cross-objection within one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of the notice of the day fixed for hearing of the appeal or within such time as the appellate Court may seem fit to allow. 9. Here in the present case from the record, it appears that the notice was issued to respondent No.4 on 28.2.2006 and the same was duly served upon the respondent No.4 on or before 28.2.2006 and thereafter, the respondent No.4 gave his appearance through his counsel on 6.3.2006, in spite of that the cross objection was filed after expiry of three months without any application for condonation of delay in not filing the cross objection within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of notice and thus cross objection filed by the respondent No.4 is time barred. 10. In view of the above, the prayer for withdrawal made by the learned Senior counsel is allowed. First Appeal No. 336/2005 is dismissed as withdrawn. The cross objection filed by the appellant vide I.A.No.5186/ 2006 on 26.6.2006 is dismissed as time barred. A.K. Sethi with Rahul Sethi for appellant; K.R. Dilliwal for respondents No.1 and 2; Deepak Rawal, Government Advocate for respondent No.3; sS.M. Dagaonkar for respsondent No.4.