Page No.# 1/6 GAHC010060082026 THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH) Case No. : CRP(IO)/107/2026 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 SANTOSH GUPTA S/O LATE LAXMAN GUPTA, R/O HOUSE NO. 24, MALIGAON, PNGB ROAD, NEAR ST. MARYS SCHOOL, GOTANAGAR, KAMRUP (M), GUWAHATI- 781011, ASSAM Advocate for the Petitioner : MR H GUPTA, Advocate for the Respondent : , Page No.# 2/6 BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ROBIN PHUKAN ORDER 06.04.2026 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 08.12.2025, passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 1, Kamrup (M) at Guwahati (appellate court hereinafter), in Misc. Appeal No. 19/2025. 3. It is to be noted here that vide impugned order dated 08.12.2025, 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, NF 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. 2641/2025, 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, Page No.# 3/6 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 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 08.12.2025. 6. It appears that in the Petition No. 2641/2025, 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:- Page No.# 4/6 “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.” 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 Page No.# 5/6 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 general 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 proposition 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 Page No.# 6/6 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. JUDGE Comparing Assistant