JUDGMENT Hon’ble Pramod Kumar Srivastava, J.—Heard learned counsel for the appellants on point of admission of second appeal and perused the records. During hearing, it was found that this appeal may be decided at this stage on the basis of admitted facts. Therefore, it is accordingly being decided. 2. Admittedly Original Suit No. 549/1989, Maulvi Zahoor Ahmad v. Smt. Bharto and others, was filed for specific performance of contract of sale of property. After affording opportunity of hearing, by its judgment dated 24.9.2013 the Court of Ist Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Saharanpur had decreed this suit for alternative relief of advance consideration paid by plaintiff to defendant. Aggrieved by this judgment of trial Court, first Civil Appeal No. 72/2013, Maulvi Zahoor Ahmad v. Smt. Bharto and others, was preferred by the plaintiff of the original suit for seeking relief of specific performance of contract. This appeal was heard and allowed by the Additional District Judge, Court No.11, Saharanpur by its judgment dated 20.11.2015, by which decree of trial Court for refund of advance consideration was amended and replaced by decree of specific performance of contract of sale. 3. Against this judgment of first appellate Court, present second appeal has been preferred by defendants of the original suit. 4. It is also admitted fact that when Civil Appeal No. 72/2013 was preferred by plaintiff of the original suit against the judgment of trial Court dated 24.9.2013, then in same appeal cross-objection was also filed by defendant-respondents of that appeal. It is also admitted that lower appellate Court had decided the Civil Appeal No. 72/2013 but had not considered the cross-objection. A perusal of certified copy of judgment of said civil appeal reveals that there is no mentioned of cross-objection in it. 5. Under Rule 22(2) of Order XLI CPC the cross-objection should be filed in form of memorandum of appeal under Rule 1 of this Order. This is also settled legal position, as discussed in sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 aforesaid that even if original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, in that case also such cross-objection so filed have to be heard on merits. Thus, cross-objection has effect of cross-appeal. 6. This is also settled legal position, as discussed in sub-rule (4) of Rule 22 aforesaid that even if original appeal is withdrawn or dismissed for default, in that case also such cross-objection so filed have to be heard on merits. Thus, cross-objection has effect of cross-appeal. 6. Admittedly in present matter, at the time of passing of the impugned judgment dated 20.11.2015, the lower appellate Court had considered the memorandum of appeal filed by plaintiff under Rule 1 of Order XLI CPC, but had not considered the cross-objection filed under Rule 22 of said Order. Thus the first appellate Court had manifestly erred when it had considered case of appellant only, and failed to consider the case of respondent-defendants. This error may be due to inadvertence but it is a serious error, which may cause serious prejudice to the legal rights of defendants. For this reason the impugned judgment is liable to be quashed, so that civil appeal may be decided afresh alongwith cross-objection filed in it, without being influenced by any finding of this Court on merits of the matter. 7. For the reasons discussed above, this appal is allowed. Impugned judgment dated 20.11.2015 of lower appellate Court is set aside. The matter is remanded back to lower appellate Court with direction to afford afresh opportunity of hearing to parties and decide the first appeal and cross-objection, very expeditiously, preferable within three months from receipt of copy of this judgment. 8. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to lower appellate Court immediately.