Daroga Raut vs Musammat Parema Kuer

Reginald Roe, J.—I think it is rash to assume that an item has been omitted from a schedule by an oversight, 16 seems to me logical to say that if a party who baa been refused an order altering a summary decision or entry in a register or a declaratory decree or an order setting aside an award or an adoption is aggrieved by such an order, he should file an appeal against that refusal. It is as reasonable to say that the words "cross-objection" have been deliberately omitted from Article 7, as it would be obviously right to say that the words "written statement, pleading, set-off or counter-claim" have been deliberately omitted from that Article. There is in the result of this conclusion no hardship. An unsuccessful litigant genuinely desirous of one of the reliefs contemplated by Article 17 is at liberty to file an appeal forthwith irrespective of any action that may be taken by his adversary, and pay on the appeal a Court fee of Rs. 10. If be asks for such a relief only because his adversary has preferred an appeal, he will be required, if his own appeal is time-barred, to pay an ad valorem fee. If his appeal is not time-barred, be should seek his remedy by a regular appeal, not by a cross-objection.