that the party satisfied with partial success is granted another opportunity of challenging the part of the decree against him upon his opponent preferring an appeal, of which notice is served or him. In order to avail of this right he has to take cross-objections within one month from the date of service on him of notice of the hearing of his opponent's appeal. In this background, the question arises as to what is the effect of the present Appellant's appeal in the lower Appellate Court having been dismissed as barred by limitation. From one point of view, he may be held not to have preferred any appeal, but from another point of view, it may be held that having himself chosen to prefer an appeal and having failed in his endeavour to successfully assail the impugned decree, even though on account of the bar of limitation, in fairness, he should not be allowed to have a second chance of re-opening the controversy in the garb of cross-objections. This aspect has not been fully developed at the bar and I would, therefore, be disinclined to express any considered opinion on the point. I should, however, like to point out that it would have been more in consonance with the practice if the learned Additional District Judge had not disposed of the cross-objections before disposing of H. Mohd. Muslim's appeal. The crossobjections are to be heard when the appeal is heard when the appeal is heard and, as a general rule, the Court is expected to dispose of both the appeal and the crossobjections together by one judgment and the decision should be incorporated in one decree. The appellant's learned counsel has, however, not made any grievance of this procedure and I need to say nothing more on it.”
