JUDGMENT : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 24.5.2017 passed by District Judge, Pali ('the first appellate court'), whereby, the appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment and decree dated 11.9.2012 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pali ('the trial court') has been rejected. 2. After hearing the parties on 9.5.2020, the following substantial question of law was framed by this Court:- "1. Whether the first appellate court was justified in arriving at the findings on the two issues and in conclusion observing that the suit was liable to be dismissed when the trial court had partly decreed the suit?" 3. The suit was filed by the plaintiff for mandatory injunction in relation to a plot No. 88, 88-A, 89 & 89-A admeasuring 12519 sq. meters, part of 3rd Phase of industrial area at Sojat. 4. Based on the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed two issues and after evidence was led by the parties, the trial court granted the following decree in favour of the plaintiff: ^^33- vr% okn oknh fo:} Áfroknhx.k ckcr vkKkRed fu"ks/kkKk vkaf'kd :i ls Lohdkj fd;k tkdj Áfroknhx.k dks tfj;s LFkk;h fu"ks/kkKk ikcUn fd;k tkrk gS fd os oknh dks fof/klaxr ÁfØ;k viuk;s fcuk fookfnr Hkw[k.M] ftldk o.kZu okn i= ds pj.k la[;k ,d esa fd;k x;k gS] ls csn[ky ugha djsaA ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks ns[krs gq, mHk; i{kdkjku [kpkZ eqdn~ek viuk&viuk ogu djsxsA rn~uqlkj fMØh ipkZ tkjh gksaA** 5. Dissatisfied with the decree granted, the appellant filed first appeal. 6. The first appellate court after hearing the parties, apparently though indicated that the appeal was being heard, while redeciding the issues, decided the same as if the appellate court was deciding the suit and while deciding the issue pertaining to relief observed as under: ^^9- vuqrks"k & oknh dk okn [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gSA** However, in the operative portion of the order, it was ordered that the appeal being without any substance, was liable to be rejected and based on the said observation, the decree was also framed dismissing the appeal. 7. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant made submissions that the trial court has partly decreed the suit, the appellant had filed appeal seeking further relief, no cross-objections were filed by the defendant, however, the appellate court has passed the order dismissing the suit, for which, there was no occasion and, therefore, to the said extent, the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court deserves to be set aside/modified. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent - RIICO attempted to make submissions that the appellate court is empowered without even filing of the cross-objections to vary the decree in terms of provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC and, therefore, the judgment impugned does not call for any interference. However, it was fairly conceded that the observations made by the court, dismissing the suit, are not in consonance with the forum, which the court was presiding over. It was prayed that the appeal be dismissed. 9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record and the record of the courts below. 10. It is not in dispute that the trial court partly decreed the suit filed by the appellant - plaintiff; dissatisfied the appellant filed first appeal, however, the first appellate court while deciding the first appeal, whereby, it dealt with the two issues framed by the trial court all over again, made observations as if the suit was being redecided and oblivious of the fact that the trial court had partly decreed the suit, made observations in the relief clause that the suit was liable to be dismissed. 11. The said observations made by the appellate court apparently are beyond the record, inasmuch as, as submitted by learned counsel for the appellant the defendant - respondent had not filed any cross-objections. 12. Provisions of Order XLI Rule 22 CPC requires that if a respondent requires something more that what has been decreed by the trial court, he is required to file cross-objections, however, the decree passed by the trial court can be defended on any other grounds without filing of the cross-objections. As the respondents are seeking to support the dismissal of the suit as a whole, it was necessary for them to file cross-objections. Having not filed the cross-objections, the said relief cannot be supported on any ground. 13. As the respondents are seeking to support the dismissal of the suit as a whole, it was necessary for them to file cross-objections. Having not filed the cross-objections, the said relief cannot be supported on any ground. 13. Further feeble submission made based on Order XLI Rule 33 CPC has been noticed only to be rejected, inasmuch as, the provisions of Order XLI Rule 33 CPC are meant for empowering the appellate court to pass a decree, which ought to have been passed by the trial court, however, the said power does not include a power to reverse the decree of the trial court, against which, no appeal has been preferred/no cross-objections have been filed. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the respondent apparently have no substance. 14. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment dated 24.5.2017 passed by the appellate court is modified only to the extent that the observations made under issue pertaining to relief of dismissing the suit, shall stand deleted. However, the decree passed dismissing the appeal by the first appellate court is upheld, consequently the decree passed by the trial court dated 11.9.2012 is also upheld.