Gauhati High Court
Page No.# 1/5 vs Smt. Rakhi Seal on 20 April, 2026
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010059832026
2026:GAU-AS:5370
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : CRP(IO)/126/2026
THE UNION OF INDIA AND 3 ORS
REPRESENTED BY THE GENERAL MANAGER, N.F. RAILWAY, MALIGAON,
GUWAHATI-781011
2: THE GENERAL MANAGER
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011
3: THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER/ESTATE
NFR/MLG
N.F. RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-781011
4: THE ESTATE OFFICER
N.F RAILWAY
MALIGAON
GUWAHATI-78101
VERSUS
SMT. RAKHI SEAL
D/O SHRI GOPI SEAL, R/O PAR NAMBARI, GOTANAGAR, KAMRUP (M),
GUWAHATI-781011, ASSAM
Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA,
Advocate for the Respondent : ,
Page No.# 2/5
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN
ORDER
20.04.2026
Heard Mr. H. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners.
2. In this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has
challenged the order dated 23.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge
No.1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (appellate court hereinafter), in Misc. Appeal No.27/2025.
3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 23.12.2025, the learned
appellate court has dismissed the petition filed by the petitioners seeking time to file
written objection.
4. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent herein
had preferred an appeal, under Section 9 of the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized
Occupants) Act, 1971 (1971 Act hereinafter), before the learned appellate court, against
the eviction order passed by the Estate Officer, N.F. Railway, Maligaon.
4.1 Mr. Gupta further submits that in the said appeal, the petitioners herein have
received notice and thereafter, filed a petition, being Petition No.2895/2025, for granting
time to file written objection. But, the learned appellate court had dismissed the petition
on the ground that there is no provision in the 1971 Act for allowing/permitting to file
written objection to the appeal memo and thereafter, dismissed the same.
4.2 Mr. Gupta, referring to a decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Life
Insurance Corporation of India vs. Nandini J. Shah and Others, reported in
(2018) 15 SCC 356, especially paragraph No. 39, submits that under Section 9 of the
1971 Act, the Appellate Officer or the District Judge, for deciding an appeal, can, and is
expected to, exercise the powers of the civil court and that under Order 41 Rule 33 of the
CPC, the petitioners herein though not preferred a cross-appeal or cross-objection against
the finding so recorded by the Estate Officer, yet it has the right to file written objection
Page No.# 3/5
and in that view of the matter, Mr. Gupta has contended to allow the petitioners herein to
file written objection before the learned appellate court.
4.3 In support of his submission, Mr. Gupta has also referred to the decisions of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Bihar Supply Syndicate vs. Asiatic
Navigation and Others, reported in (1993) 2 SCC 639 and Choudhary Sahu vs.
State of Bihar, reported in (1982) 1 SCC 232.
5. Having heard the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, this Court has
carefully gone through the petition as well as the documents placed on record and also
perused the impugned order dated 23.12.2025.
6. It appears that in the Petition No.2895/2025, the petitioners herein had prayed for
granting reasonable time to file objection in the appeal filed by the respondent herein.
7. Admittedly, the petitioners herein had not filed any cross-appeal or cross-objection
against the order passed by the Estate Officer. But, under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, in
an appeal, the respondent without a cross-appeal or cross-objection being filed, can
support the finding so recorded by the Estate Officer. Mr. Gupta, learned counsel for the
petitioners, has rightly pointed this out and the decision referred by him also
strengthened his submission.
8. It is to be noted here that in the case of Choudhary Sahu (supra), Hon’ble
Supreme Court has held as under:-
“22.(1) Any respondent, though he may not have appealed from any
part of the decree, may not only support the decree on any of the
grounds decided against him in the Court below, but take any cross-
objection to the decree which he could have taken by way of appeal,
provided he has filed such objection in the Appellate Court within
one month from the date of service on him or his pleader of notice
of the day fixed for hearing the appeal, or within such further
time as the Appellate Court may see fit to allow.”
Page No.# 4/5
8.1 Further, in the case of Bihar Supply Syndicate (supra), Hon’ble Supreme
Court has held as under:-
“24. We are in agreement with the High Court that the cross-
objections filed by defendant 3 in the appeal filed by defendant 4
against the plaintiff were not maintainable. However, we are not in
agreement with the High Court that the provisions of Order 41 Rule
33 of the Code of Civil Procedure were not applicable. The High
Court noticed the decisions of this Court in Choudhary Sahu v.
State of Bihar [(1982) 1 SCC 232 : AIR 1982 SC 98] and Mahant
Dhangir v. Shri Madan Mohan [1987 Supp SCC 528 : AIR 1988 SC 54]
but felt that it could not grant relief to defendant 3. In the
Constitution Bench decision of this Court in Pannalal v. State of
Bombay [(1964) 1 SCR 980: AIR 1963 SC 1516] the facts were that the
appellant therein had brought three suits claiming full payment
with interest in respect of three hospitals constructed by him in
execution of three separate contracts. The trial court decreed the
suits for part of his claim against the State of Madhya Pradesh and
held that other defendants were not liable, and accordingly
dismissed the suits against them. On appeals preferred by the State
of Madhya Pradesh the High Court set aside the decree against the
State Government and allowed the appeals with costs. The plaintiff
at that stage prayed for leave of the High Court to file a cross
objection and also for decrees to be passed against the Deputy
Commissioner under Order 41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
which was rejected and all the suits were dismissed. It was inter
alia urged that the High Court ought to have granted relief against
such of the other defendants as it thought fit under Order 41 Rule
33 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This Court held that the wide
wording of Order 41 Rule 33 empowers the appellate court to make
whatever order it thinks fit, not only as between the appellants
and the respondent but also as between a respondent and a
respondent. It could not be said that if a party who could have
filed a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 did not do so, the
appellate court could under no circumstances give him relief under
the provisions of Order 41 Rule 33. Order 41 Rule 22 permits as a
Page No.# 5/5general rule, respondent to prefer an objection directed only
against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases that an
objection under Order 41 Rule 22 can be directed against the other
respondents. On the facts of these cases the High Court refused to
exercise its powers under Order 41 Rule 33 on an incorrect rule of
the law and so the appeal must be remanded to the High Court for
decision what relief should be granted to the plaintiff under Order
41 Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure.”
9. In view of the aforesaid proposition, so laid by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases
of Choudhary Sahu (supra) and Bihar Supply Syndicate (supra) and also in view
of the submission so advanced by Mr. Gupta, leaned counsel for the petitioners, this Court
is of the view that under Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, the petitioners herein can file
written objection, directed only against the respondent herein.
10. In that view of the matter, the impugned order, rejecting the petition filed by the
petitioners herein, for filing written objection, to the considered opinion of this Court,
failed to withstand the legal scrutiny and accordingly, the same stands set aside and
quashed.
11. Consequently, the petitioners herein are permitted to file written objection before
the learned appellate court before the next date of hearing.
12. In terms of above, this petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- Robin Phukan
JUDGE
Comparing Assistant