JUDGMENT : 1. The instant civil misc. appeal has been preferred by the claimant/appellant for enhancement of compensation and liability to pay compensation to be imposed upon all the non-claimant/ respondents jointly and severally, against the judgment dated 01/03/2011 passed by Presiding Officer, Special Court (Communal Riots)/Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Jaipur (hereinafter referred as to “the Tribunal”) in MAC No. 579/2008 (448/1997), whereby the claim petition was partly accepted and award of Rs.14,89,060/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum was passed instead of Rs.20,60,000/- as claimed in the claim petition. 2. After filing of the instant appeal, non-claimant/respondent No. 2 Narendra Kumar Bhansali submitted cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC against the impugned judgment and award dated 01/03/2011 with prayer to quash and set aside the finding of the impugned award passed against him. In alternative it is also prayed that he may be allowed to defend the case on merits which has been decided ex parte against him and for this purpose the matter may be remanded back to the learned Tribunal. 3. Material facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that the claimant/appellant filed a claim petition before the Tribunal against the non-claimant/respondents for claiming compensation for the injuries sustained by him stating therein that on intervening night of 04/03/1997 and 05/03/1997, the claimant was going on a motorcycle bearing No. RJ 14 M 2359 from Railway Station to Malviya Nagar, Jaipur which was driven by Mukesh Kumar. When they reached near Imliwala Phatak, a Fiat Car bearing registration No. RNV – 6918 came from opposite direction and hit the motorcycle of the appellant. The car was driven by Suresh Yadav rashly and negligently. It is also pleaded that Mukesh Kumar also turned the motorcycle towards Imliwala Phatak rashly and negligently. The accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of both the drivers of car and motorcycle. It is also pleaded that the claimant sustained serious injuries and became permanently disabled to the extent of 50.89%. At the time of accident, the claimant was 32 years old and he was working with Indian Oil Corporation Ltd., Jaipur. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and prayed to award Rs.20,60,000/- as compensation jointly and severally against non-claimant/respondents. 4. In the said claim petition, notices were ordered to be issued to the non-claimants. The accident occurred due to rash and negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles and prayed to award Rs.20,60,000/- as compensation jointly and severally against non-claimant/respondents. 4. In the said claim petition, notices were ordered to be issued to the non-claimants. Vakalatanamas were filed for non-claimant/ respondent Nos. 1 & 2 by Shri Jitendra Shrimali, for non-claimant/ respondent Nos. 4 & 5 by Shri Som Dutt and for respondent No. 6 by Ram Avatar on 10/09/1997. Non-claimant Nos. 1, 2, 4 & 5 did not file their reply to the claim petition. On 27/10/1997 none appeared for the non-claimant Nos. 1 & 2, thus ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. On 08/12/1999 right of non-claimant Nos. 4 & 5 to file reply was closed. 5. Non-claimant No. 6 in it’s reply admitted that the Motorcycle No. RJ 14 M 2359 was insured with her and denied all the material averments of the claim petition and pleaded that the accident has occurred due to rash and negligent driving of car by non-claimant No. 1, therefore, liability to pay compensation cannot be fastened on driver of the vehicle insured with the answering non-claimant/ respondent. It was also pleaded that at the time of accident the insured vehicle was driven by non-claimant/ respondent No. 4, who was not having valid and effective driving licence which was in the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle, thus, the insurance company is not liable to pay any compensation and prayed to dismiss the claim petition against her. 6. From pleadings of the parties learned Tribunal framed as many as five issues. Claimant appeared in the witness box as AW- 1 and exhibited 18 documents. The witness was cross-examined by the insurance company alone. Non-claimant insurance company did not produce any evidence. Thereafter, arguments were heard and the claim petition was decided and award of Rs.14,89,060/- with interest @ 6% per annum was passed only against the driver and owner of the Fiat Car, holding that the questioned accident was occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the Fiat Car and no negligence attributed on the part of driver of the motorcycle and as such the claim petition was ordered to be dismissed against the driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. Being aggrieved with the impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal, the claimant/appellant has preferred this appeal. 7. Non-claimant/respondent No. 2 has submitted cross-objections stating therein that the learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the accident has occurred only because of negligence of respondent No. 1. Whereas, it is clear case of negligent driving of motorcycle driver, the respondent No. 4 as well as car driver, the respondent No. 1 and it was a case of joint negligence of both the drivers. Therefore, there was no justification to exonerate respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 from the liability of paying compensation to the claimant/appellant. 8. It is also submitted in the cross-objections that permanent disability has been assessed as 50.89% which is not proved and it has not come on record whether this disability is relating to only a part of the body or relating to whole body. Learned Tribunal has wrongly assessed the amount of compensation taking monthly income of the claimant to be Rs.12,000/- and applying multiplier of 18, whereas salary of the claimant was only Rs.4,521/- per month and claimant did not suffer any loss of income due to alleged disability as there was no reduction in his salary, rather it has been increased. Learned Tribunal erroneously awarded Rs.1,40,000/- also for the loss of leave. 9. It is also submitted in the cross-objections that the impugned award has been passed against the respondent/cross-objector ex-parte. In fact he did not receive any notice of the claim petition. When on 15/09/2015, the respondent cross-objector received information from the employee of Tehsildar, Sanganer regarding execution proceedings pending against him in the office of SDO Sanganer, Jaipur. On making inquiry, it revealed that the execution proceeding is in relation to the impugned award. Thereafter, he obtained certified copies of the record and came to know that the notice of the claim petition sent to him was returned back unserved. However one vakalatnama was filed by Shri Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate on his behalf and respondent No. 1. At this stage it was realized by him that after the accident, his landlord Shri Manish Vaidya, who taken his car alongwith respondent No. 1, had got his signatures on some blank forms of vakalatnama and blank papers, to get the car released. However one vakalatnama was filed by Shri Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate on his behalf and respondent No. 1. At this stage it was realized by him that after the accident, his landlord Shri Manish Vaidya, who taken his car alongwith respondent No. 1, had got his signatures on some blank forms of vakalatnama and blank papers, to get the car released. Probably these vakalatnamas signed by the cross-objector have been used by his landlord Shri Manish Vaidya and respondent No. 1 without his knowledge, despite the fact that he did not receive any notice in the claim petition. It is also submitted that cross-objector did not receive any notice of the appeal, yet vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf in this appeal, which is without his knowledge. Probably vakalatnamas earlier signed by him have been used by respondent No. 1 in the same manner. Alongwith cross-objections, an application for condonation of delay was also filed by the cross-objector under Section 5 of the Limitation Act alongwith affidavit. 10. The claimant/appellant submitted his reply to application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act denying the averments made in the application stating therein that the notices were duly served upon the respondent/cross-objector during the course of the trial before learned Tribunal, and thereafter vakalatnama duly signed by the cross-objector was filed by his advocates on 10/09/1997 before the Tribunal. It is also submitted that in the appeal, Hon’ble Court on 19/05/2012, was pleased to issue notices to respondents which were duly served upon respondent/cross-objector on 07/12/2013. In execution proceedings also, the learned Motor Vehicle Claims Tribunal issued notices to the cross-objector which was also duly served upon him, but he did not choose to appear before the Tribunal. Process server of Tehsildar on 07/09/2015, visited the house of the respondent/cross-objector, where he and his brother Devendra Bhansali refused to accept the notice. Therefore, the fact of receiving information from the employee of Tehsildar on 15/09/2015, as stated by the cross-objector, is false and prayed to dismiss the application for condonation of delay with cost. 11. Mr. Virendra Agrawwal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant in para No. 28 of the claim petition has pleaded that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of driver of Motorcycle as well as driver of Fiat Car. 11. Mr. Virendra Agrawwal, learned counsel for the appellant contended that the claimant in para No. 28 of the claim petition has pleaded that the accident occurred due to composite negligence of driver of Motorcycle as well as driver of Fiat Car. The reply to the claim petition was filed by respondent No. 6 New India Assurance Company Ltd. alone, wherein, the factum of the accident was not disputed and the factum of comprehensive insurance coverage was admitted. The averment made in para No. 28 of the claim petition regarding negligence of driver of both the vehicles was not specifically denied. It is also contended that the claimant became unconscious immediately after the accident and remain hospitalized for 28 days. The FIR was lodged by Om Prakash, brother of the claimant on 23/03/1996 and during investigation, police seized Fiat Car and filed charge sheet against driver of the car. It is further contended that the claimant/appellant appeared in the witness box before the learned Tribunal as AW-1 and marked 18 documents. The claimant categorically stated that the driver of the motorcycle was at much fault than the driver of the car and there is no rebuttal of this evidence. Even then the learned Tribunal has committed error in holding that accident in question occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the car and there was no negligence on the part of driver of the motorcycle. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that it is crystal clear from the site plan Ex.-3 that driver of motorcycle took the turn on the right side at the angle of ninety degree without taking note of the fact that a car is coming with high speed from opposite direction. Hence, driver of both the vehicles were negligent and doctrine of “circumstances speak itself” is applicable and it can be legally presumed that drivers of both the vehicles were negligent. The claimant has option to file claim petition against either of the wrong doer or against both the wrong doers and both the wrong doers are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, therefore, the impugned judgment and award dismissing the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle is erroneous. 13. The claimant has option to file claim petition against either of the wrong doer or against both the wrong doers and both the wrong doers are jointly and severally liable to pay compensation, therefore, the impugned judgment and award dismissing the claim petition against the driver, owner and insurer of the motorcycle is erroneous. 13. Learned counsel for the appellant also contended that learned Tribunal has awarded very meager amount of Rs.20,000/- only, under the head of pain and suffering, though he is entitled for Rs.2,00,000/- and further for Rs.2,00,000/- under the head of loss of amenities of life. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the owner of the car, respondent No. 2 has filed cross-objections and came with a false case because it is clear from the order of the learned Tribunal that vakalatnama was filed by Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate on behalf of the owner before the Tribunal on 10/09/1997 and as such it cannot be said that he was not aware with the pendency of the claim petition. Vakalatnama by the same advocate has been filed before Hon’ble High Court on 15/02/2014, as such the pendency of the appeal was also within the knowledge of the cross objector and his averment that he has not authorized the advocate to file vakalatnama, has no factual foundation. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant further contended that the appeal has not been admitted as yet thus, the cross objections are not maintainable. The owner has remedy to file appeal under Section 173 of Motor Vehicles Act with pre requisite condition of depositing 50% of the awarded amount or Rs.25,000/-, which ever is less. As such the remedy of cross-objections is not available to the owner, because he cannot bye pass mandatory condition incorporated in Section 173 of the Act of 1988. The learned counsel prayed to allow the appeal and liability of the awarded amount may be imposed upon all the non-complaint/respondents jointly and severally and to dismiss the cross-objections filed by the owner of the vehicle. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on:- A. 2015 ACJ 1441 , Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. B. 2014(1) ACTC (SC) 270, Pawan Kumar & Anr. Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohal Lal & Ors. C. 1995 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on:- A. 2015 ACJ 1441 , Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. B. 2014(1) ACTC (SC) 270, Pawan Kumar & Anr. Vs. Harkishan Dass Mohal Lal & Ors. C. 1995 ACJ 366, R.D. Hattangadi Vs. Pest Control (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. D. [2011] 6 SCC 321, Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer. E. [2008] 3 RLW (Raj) 2345, East India Hotels (The) Ltd. Vs. Smt. Mahendra Kumari, Since deceased, through her LR Jitendra & Anr. F. 2005 ACJ 857, Lata Vs. United India Insurance Co. Ltd. & Ors. G. 2003 ACJ 49 , Abhilasha Bai Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors. H. (2003) 8 SCC 319 , Ram Chandra Singh Vs. Savitri Devi & Ors. I. AIR 1992 SC 1555 , Smt. Shrisht Dhawan Vs. M/s. Shaw Brothers. 15. Per contra, while reiterating the grounds mentioned in cross-objections, Mr. Sandeep Mathur and Mr. B.C. Chiraniya, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/cross-objector have submitted that the present case is a case of composite negligence of both the drivers. There was no evidence in rebuttal to this evidence. In such circumstances, there was no justification for the learned Tribunal to exonerate non-claimant/respondent Nos. 4, 5 & 6 from the liability to pay compensation to the claimant. Therefore, the finding of learned Tribunal on issue No. 1 & 2 being contrary to the facts and evidence, deserves to be quashed and set aside. 16. Mr. Sandeep Mathur also contended that it has not been proved by the claimant that his permanent disability assessed as 50.89% relates to only a part of body or to whole body. Learned Tribunal erred in calculating the loss of future income by taking monthly income of the claimant as Rs.12,000/- per month and by applying a multiplier of 18, whereas salary of the complainant was only Rs.4,521/- per month at the time of accident. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no reduction in salary of the claimant after the accident, rather it has been increased. 17. Mr. Sandeep Mathur further contended that impugned award has been passed against the respondent cross-objector ex-parte. In fact he never received any notice of the claim petition. Learned counsel also submitted that there was no reduction in salary of the claimant after the accident, rather it has been increased. 17. Mr. Sandeep Mathur further contended that impugned award has been passed against the respondent cross-objector ex-parte. In fact he never received any notice of the claim petition. On 15/09/2015, the respondent cross-objector received information from the employee of Tehsildar, Sanganer regarding execution proceedings pending against him in the office of SDO. On inquiry, it revealed that the execution proceedings are in relation to the impugned award. Later on, he came to know that record of the learned Tribunal has been called by this Hon’ble Court. Thereafter, he obtained certified copies of the record and came to know that the notice of the claim petition was never served upon him. However, one vakalatnama was filed by Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate on his behalf with respondent No. 1. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondent cross-objector did not receive any notice of the appeal, yet vakalatnama has been filed on his behalf and appearance on his behalf is again without his knowledge. In this way, the cross-objector was neither having knowledge of pendency of the claim petition, nor the knowledge about this award and nor about the pendency of this appeal, prior to 15/09/2015. Learned counsel prayed to quash and set aside the findings of impugned award passed against cross-objector/ respondent and in alternative, prayed to allow the cross-objector to defend the present case on merits which has been decided ex-parte against him and for this purpose to remand the matter to the learned Tribunal. 18. Mr. Monaj Bhardwaj, learned counsel for the respondent No. 5 has contended that the cross-objections filed by the respondent No. 2 are barred by limitation. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the cross-objector/respondent No. 2 has played fraud pleading wrong facts in his cross-objections. 19. Mr. Raaj Pal Choudhary, learned counsel for the respondent No. 6, The New India Assurance Company Ltd. has supported the impugned judgment and award, and contended that the accident in question was occurred due to sole negligence of driver of the Fiat Car, which is evident from the FIR itself. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against driver of the car only, holding him to be sole negligent for the accident. After investigation, the police filed charge sheet against driver of the car only, holding him to be sole negligent for the accident. Learned counsel also contended that there is no evidence of loss of income to the claimant due to the injuries sustained by him in the accident. Medical expenses have been already reimbursed to the claimant and he does not suffer from any statutory disability. 20. We have given anxious consideration, to the contentions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 21. First of all, we have to decide whether the remedy of cross-objections envisaged under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC is available to the respondent/cross-objector or not? 22. It is contended by of learned counsel for the appellant that the owner has remedy to file appeal under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act and before filing the appeal there is a pre requisite condition for depositing the amount, as such the remedy of cross-objections is not available to him because he cannot bye-pass the mandatory condition incorporated in Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. It is also contended that provisions of cross-objections under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC are not applicable to the appeal filed under Section 173 of the Act 1988, as the concerned Rules does not provide so. Learned counsel attracted our attention to Rule 10.28 of Rajasthan Motor Vehicle Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as “the Rules of 1990”) and submitted that provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC have not been made applicable to the claim proceedings and therefore, the cross-objections are liable to be dismissed, on this score alone. 23. We are not persuaded with the contention of learned counsel for the appellant. Rule 10.28 of the Rules of 1990 makes provisions for procedure to be followed by the Claims Tribunal in holding inquiries. Certain Sections and provisions of First Schedule of the Code, 1908 envisaged in Rule 10.28, have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. For filing and hearing of appeals, provisions have been made in Rule 10.31 of Rules of 1990, which are as under:- 10.31. Certain Sections and provisions of First Schedule of the Code, 1908 envisaged in Rule 10.28, have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal. For filing and hearing of appeals, provisions have been made in Rule 10.31 of Rules of 1990, which are as under:- 10.31. Form of Appeal and Contents of Memorandum.- (1) Every Appeal against the award of the Claims Tribunal shall be preferred in the form of a memorandum signed by the appellant or an Advocate or Attorney of the High Court duly authorised in that behalf by the applicant and presented to the High Court or to such officer as it appoints in this behalf. This memorandum shall be accompanied by a copy of the award. (2) The memorandum shall set forth concisely and under distinct heads the grounds of objection to the award appealed from without any argument or narrative, and such grounds shall be numbered consecutively. (3) Save as provided in sub-rule (1) and (2) the provisions of Order XXI and Order XLI in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) shall mutatis mutandis apply to appeals preferred to High Court under Section 173. 24. From the above provisions, it is crystal clear that provisions of Order XLI in the First Schedule to the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 mutatis mutandis applies to appeals preferred to High Court under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 25. In view of the discussions made above, the judgments relied upon by the appellant passed in Lata Vs. United India Insurance Company Ltd. & Ors. (supra), Abhilasha Bai Vs. Arvind Kumar & Ors. (supra), are not of much help to the appellant and we are of the considered opinion that provisions of Rule 22 of Order XLI of CPC regarding filing of cross objections by the respondents, also applies in the appeals preferred under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. 26. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the cross objections filed by the respondent/cross-objector are barred by limitation, because the cross objections can be filed within 30 days from the date of hearing. It is argued that the appeal has still not been admitted. 26. It is also contended by learned counsel for the appellant that the cross objections filed by the respondent/cross-objector are barred by limitation, because the cross objections can be filed within 30 days from the date of hearing. It is argued that the appeal has still not been admitted. Moreover, the appellant came to know of the filing of appeal on 15/02/2014, when first vakalatnama was filed on his behalf before this Hon’ble Court and the cross objections have been filed by the respondent No. 2 on 16/10/2015, as such the cross objections cannot be considered being filed within the period of limitation, prescribed for. 27. The respondent/cross objector has come out with a case that he never received any notice of the claim petition, as also of the appeal preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court and the vakalatnamas on his behalf were filed without his knowledge before the learned Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court. It is also contended that on 15/09/2015, the respondent/cross objector received information regarding execution proceedings pending against him and on inquiry it revealed that the execution proceeding is in relation to the impugned award. Thereafter, he obtained certified copies of the record and filed the cross objections. An application for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections is also filed by the respondent/cross-objector. 28. From perusal of record of the learned Tribunal, it reveals that on registration of the claim petition, it was ordered to issue summons to the non-claimants returnable by 06/06/1997, but the notices were not issued and the case was adjourned for 10/09/1997. Thereafter, summons to the non-claimants were issued for 10/09/1997 and sent by registered post with AD. Summons were served on non-claimant Nos. 1, 4, 5 & 6 but summon of non-claimant No. 2, Narendra Kumar (respondent/cross-objector herein) returned unserved by the postal authorities with remark that the addressee does not reside on the given address. It is pertinent to note that non-claimant No. 2, Narendra Kumar resides in House No. D-402, Sarvanand Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur which is evident from the claim petition, memo of appeal and cross-objections also. Whereas, the summon was sent at D-432, Sarvanand Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. There is nothing on record to suggest that summon issued by the learned Tribunal was ever served on non-claimant Narendra Kumar or was ever tendered to him. On 10/09/1997, Mr. Whereas, the summon was sent at D-432, Sarvanand Marg, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur. There is nothing on record to suggest that summon issued by the learned Tribunal was ever served on non-claimant Narendra Kumar or was ever tendered to him. On 10/09/1997, Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of non-claimant Nos. 1 & 2, Mr. Som Dutt, Advocate filed vakalatnama on behalf of non-claimant Nos. 4 & 5 and Mr. Ram Avatar, Advocate filed vakalatnama for non-claimant No. 6 and sought adjournment to file reply. On next date 26/09/1997, the case was adjourned and on following date 27/10/1997, none appeared on behalf of non-claimant Nos. 1 & 2, thus, ex-parte proceedings were drawn against them. 29. From perusal of record of this Court, it reveals that notice to respondent No. 2 Narendra Kumar Bhansali was issued for 13/01/2014 and was sent for service to District Judge, Jaipur Metropolitan. Process server reported that he went on the given address on 07/12/2013 in search of Narendra Kumar, who was not found, but his brother met there who received copy of the notice and placed his signature on front page of other copy of notice. It also reveals that vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No. 2 Narendra Kumar was filed on 15/02/2014 by Mr. J.R. Tantiya, Advocate. In vakalatnama, name of Mr. Jitendra Shrimali, Advocate and Mr. Mukesh Choudhary are also mentioned alongwith Mr. J.R. Tantiya, Advocate. Thereafter, vakalatnama on behalf of the respondent No. 2 Narendra Kumar was filed by Mr. Ankit Sharma, Advocate on 19/09/2015 and by Mr. Sandeep Mathur on 21/10/2016. 30. The respondent No. 2/cross-objector has come out with a specific case that he did not receive any notice of the claim petition from the learned Tribunal, as also of the appeal preferred by the appellant before this Hon’ble Court and the vakalatnamas on his behalf were filed without his knowledge before the learned Tribunal and this Hon’ble Court. On 15/09/2015, the respondent/cross-objector received information through employee of Tehsildar regarding execution proceedings pending against him in the office of SDO Sanganer, Jaipur, and on inquiry it revealed that the execution proceedings is in relation to the impugned award. Thereafter, he obtained certified copies of the record and filed the cross-objections. On 15/09/2015, the respondent/cross-objector received information through employee of Tehsildar regarding execution proceedings pending against him in the office of SDO Sanganer, Jaipur, and on inquiry it revealed that the execution proceedings is in relation to the impugned award. Thereafter, he obtained certified copies of the record and filed the cross-objections. Respondent No. 2/cross-objector has also submitted that Shri Manish Vaidya who was landlord of the cross-objector and who had taken his car alongwith respondent No. 1, had got his signatures on some blank forms of vakalatnama and blank papers after the accident, to get the car released. Probably these vakalatnamas signed by the respondent/cross-objector have been used by Shri Manish Vaidya and respondent No. 1, without knowledge and information to the cross-objector, despite the fact that he never received any notice of the claim petition. Appearance on behalf of respondent/cross-objector in this appeal is again without his knowledge and probably vakalatnamas earlier signed by him, have been used again in the same manner. It is also contended by the respondent/cross-objector that he usually remains out of city and some time out of country in connection of his business for long duration. He is not having cordial relations with his brother and because of that, earlier he used to reside in rented house of Shri Manish Vaidya and later on shifted in Malviya Nagar, but some disputes between him and his brother remained continued. Because of these reasons, probably respondent No. 2/cross-objector could not get information of service of notice of the appeal upon his brother. 31. In [2011] 6 SCC 321 Mahadev Govind Gharge & Ors. Vs. The Special Land Acquisition Officer (supra), the respondents filed an appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court to the High Court of Karnataka on 12/09/2001. The landowners were on a caveat. The High Court admitted the appeal on the same day and directed the office to post the same for hearing immediately after lower Court records (LCR) were received. On 19/11/2002, the appellants filed cross-objections before the High Court, under Order XLI Rule 22 of CPC, alongwith an application for condonation of delay of 404 days in the cross-objections. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts have wide discretion to permit filing of the cross-objections even after the expiry of 30 days or for that matter any period which, is found to be just and proper by the Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Courts have wide discretion to permit filing of the cross-objections even after the expiry of 30 days or for that matter any period which, is found to be just and proper by the Court. Thus, right of cross-objector is not taken away in absolute terms in case of such default. It is also held that provisions of the rule must receive a liberal construction and should be construed to achieve the ends of justice, advance the interest of public and to avoid multiplicity of litigation. The Court has to strike a balance between respective rights of the parties. It was further held that Appellate Court should normally grant extension of time or condone the delay beyond limitation period. This approach should be adopted even without aid of Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963. 32. In view of the peculiar facts of the present case as stated above and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the delay occurred in filing the cross-objections by the respondent/cross-objector is thus, condoned. 33. From discussions made above, it is proved that the summon issued by the learned Tribunal was never served upon the respondent/cross-objector nor was tendered to him and the Advocate, who filed vakalatnama on his behalf, did not defend the non-claimant respondent No. 2/cross-objector (herein) and never appeared before the learned Tribunal after two hearings. In these circumstances, non-claimant respondent No. 2/cross-objector could not submit his version and defend the claim petition before the learned Tribunal. Therefore, this is a fit case to be remanded back to the learned Tribunal so that the respondent No. 2/crossobjector may be allowed to defend the claim petition on merits which has been decided ex-parte against him. In these circumstances, other arguments raised by learned counsel for the parties does not require consideration at this stage. 34. Consequently, the cross-objections filed by the non-claimant/ respondent no. 2 are allowed, impugned judgment and award passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the learned Tribunal with direction to decide the claim petition afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the parties to the claim petition. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. 35. As the claim petition pertains to the year 1997, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition expeditiously in accordance with law. The appeal and the cross-objections are disposed of accordingly. 35. As the claim petition pertains to the year 1997, it is expected from the learned Tribunal to decide the claim petition expeditiously in accordance with law. Parties are directed to appear before the learned Tribunal on 18/04/2017.