Ritu Raj Awasthi, J.;- Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, who has appeared on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4 and Sri Manish Kumar for the opposite party no. 1. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he does not want to file rejoinder affidavit to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party Nos. 2 to 4. 3. With the consent of parties' counsel, the writ petition is being disposed of finally. 4. Under challenge is the order dated 31.5.2011, by which the cross objections filed in the Appeal No. 93 of 2010, have been rejected with cost of Rs. 5000/-, basically on the ground that the said objections have been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings before the appellate Court. 5. Relevant facts of the case are that an application under Section 21 of the Rent Control Act for release of the shop in question was moved by the father of the opposite party nos. 2 to 4 against the opposite party nos. 5 to 10 as well as against the petitioner. The said release application was allowed against which an appeal under Section 22 of the Rent Control Act was filed by the opposite party nos. 5 to 10. The petitioner is said to be the real sister of the opposite party nos. 5 to 7. At the time of filing of the said appeal, she was not impleaded as appellant and, in fact, she was made a proforma opposite party. During the pendency of the appeal, cross objections were filed by the petitioner, however, the learned Court below while considering the said objections came to the conclusion by the impugned order that the said objections have been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings and has rejected the cross objection with the cost of Rs. 5000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently submitted that the cross objections were to be decided on merits, may be at the time of disposal of the appeal, whereas the learned Court below has rejected the same on the ground of delay, which is not sustainable in the eye of law. 7. Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 7. Sri Rakesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite party nos. 2 to 4, on the other hand, submitted that the said cross objections were itself not maintainable and as the petitioner as well as the opposite party nos. 5 to 7, are the real brothers and sisters, the said cross objections have been filed with the intention to delay the proceedings before the appellate Court. The property in question has been released and the opposite party nos. 5 to 7, along with the petitioner are delaying the proceedings before the appellate court below. 8. Be that as it may, I am of the considered opinion that the cross objections filed by the petitioner were required to be considered on merits by the Court concerned. 9. So far as the delay is concerned, since the appeal itself was filed sometime in the year 2010 against the order dated 27.5.2010 and all the parties before the appellate court have put in their appearance and filed their response, therefore, it cannot be said that undue delay has been caused by the petitioner by filing the cross objections. 10. In this view of the matter, I am of the considered opinion that the order impugned dated 31.5.2011, is not sustainable in the eye of law. It is hereby quashed with the observation that the learned Court below shall consider and decide the cross objections on merits, may be at the time of disposal of the appeal. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner informed that his client would not take unnecessary adjournments in the matter and would cooperate for expeditious disposal of the appeal. In case the parties agree, the Court below may dispose of the pending appeal expeditiously, say within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the court below. However, it will be open for the Court concerned to consider the maintainability of the cross objections in case it is so required. 12. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is finally disposed of.