Bombay High Court
Nilkanth Vishwanath Sonwane vs The State Of Maharashtra And Another on 27 February, 2019
Author: P.R. Bora
Bench: P.R. Bora
1 9918.2016CA.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.
BENCH AT AURANGABAD.
914 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9918 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/16672/2016
NARAYAN MALIBA TANDALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORATION AURANGABAD THR ITS EXE ENG
...
915 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9920 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/16672/2016
SHESHRAO NAGORAO KADAM
VERSUS
M.I.D.C. A CORPORATE BODY THROUGH DIVISI.OFFICER,LATUR
...
916 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10103 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/16668/2016
SHESHABAI BHAGUJI TANDALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
GODAWARI MARATHWADA IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT
CORPORTIONAURANGABAD THR EXE ENGINEER
...
917 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.10118 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/31630/2015 WITH CA/10114/2016 IN X-
OBJST/31626/2015 WITH CA/10115/2016 IN X-
OBJST/31613/2015 WITH CA/10116/2016 IN X-
OBJST/31601/2015 WITH CA/10117/2016 IN X-
OBJST/31634/2015
DNYANESHWAR BHAURAO PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
918 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.15857 OF 2016
IN X-OBJST/27970/2016
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
2 9918.2016CA.doc
NAMDEO TATYARAO KHOCHARE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
...
919 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.214 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/27765/2016 WITH CA/4939/2013 IN FA/216/2015
WITH CA/4941/2013 IN FA/223/2015 WITH CA/4945/2013 IN
FA/225/2015 WITH CA/4947/2013 IN FA/227/2015 WITH
CA/4953/2013 IN FA/217/2015 WITH CA/4956/2013 IN
FA/218/2015 WITH CA/4959/2013 IN FA/219/2015 WITH
CA/4961/2013 IN FA/220/2015 WITH CA/4963/2013 IN
FA/221/2015 WITH CA/4965/2013 IN FA/222/2015 WITH
CA/205/2017 IN X-OBJST/27770/2016 WITH CA/206/2017 IN X-
OBJST/27772/2016 WITH CA/207/2017 IN X-OBJST/27776/2016
WITH CA/208/2017 IN X-OBJST/27778/2016 WITH CA/209/2017
IN X-OBJST/27774/2016 WITH CA/210/2017 IN X-
OBJST/27759/2016 WITH CA/211/2017 IN X-OBJST/27761/2016
WITH CA/212/2017 IN X-OBJST/27763/2016 WITH CA/213/2017
IN X-OBJST/28340/2016
BALASAHEB SHESHERAO SHINGADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
920 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.416 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/26468/2016
SHANKAR BHIMA CHAVAN DIED THR LRS MALABAI AND ANR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
921 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.578 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/30174/2016
MADHAV DEVIDASRAO JADHAV THR POWER OF ATTORNEY
DEVIDAS NARAYANRAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
3 9918.2016CA.doc
922 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.593 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/23272/2016
LAXMAN KERBA TANDALE DIED THROUGH ITS LRS NANDUBAI
LAXMAN TANDALE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
GODAVARI MINOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THRITS EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATI
...
923 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.622 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/39101/2016 WITH CA/685/2017 IN X-
OBJST/39101/2016
EKNATH HULA KOLI AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
924 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.758 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/23493/2016
ASHOK ANNASAHEB JADHAV AND ORS
VERSUS
GODAVARI MINOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THRITS EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATI
...
925 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.759 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/23276/2016
DNYANOBA DHONDIBA TANDALE
VERSUS
GODAVARI MINOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THRITS EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATI
...
926 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.764 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/23274/2016
RAJARAM BABU LAMB AND ANOTHER
VERSUS
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
4 9918.2016CA.doc
GODAVARI MINOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THRITS EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATI
...
927 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.768 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/24978/2016
PRABHAWATI SHIVAPPA TANWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
928 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.772 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/24968/2016
CHAYABAI BASWARAJ TANWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
929 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.774 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/24972/2016
SUNIL SHIVAPPA TANWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
930 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.775 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/22904/2016
MAROTI BAPURAO PAWAR
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
931 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.776 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/22414/2016
VITTHAL KISHANRAO JADHAV
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
5 9918.2016CA.doc
932 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.777 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/24975/2016
DHANRAJ SHIVAPPA TANWADE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS
...
933 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.790 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/36793/2015 WITH CA/8560/2011 IN FA/1237/2012
WITH CA/8564/2011 IN FA/1243/2012 WITH CA/8566/2011 IN
FA/1241/2012 WITH CA/4832/2014 IN FA/1243/2012 WITH
CA/4833/2014 IN FA/1237/2012 WITH CA/4834/2014 IN
FA/1241/2012 WITH CA/793/2017 IN X-OBJST/35462/2015 WITH
CA/795/2017 IN X-OBJST/35460/2015 WITH CA/796/2017 IN X-
OBJST/36484/2015 WITH CA/797/2017 IN X-OBJST/36488/2015
PRABHAKAR MADHAV KONDANE
VERSUS
THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, M.I.W., JALGAONAND
ANR
...
934 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.799 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/6302/2016 WITH CA/800/2017 IN X-
OBJST/6117/2016 WITH CA/801/2017 IN X-OBJST/6112/2016
WITH CA/802/2017 IN X-OBJST/6300/2016
KARBASAPPA MAHADAPPA MITKARI DIED THR HIS LRS
SUSHILABAI AND ORS
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA THE DY. CHIEF ENGINEER (CONSTRUCTION)
DRMS OFFICE COMPOUND CENTRAL
...
935 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.816 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/34894/2016
BHAGIRATH MADHAVRAO MENKUDALE
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
LATUR UNDER GMIDC AURANGABAD
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
6 9918.2016CA.doc
...
936 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.822 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/34865/2016
UMAKANT TRIMBAK MAHAJAN
VERSUS
EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION,
LATUR UNDER GMIDC AURANGABAD
...
937 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1158 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/23264/2016 WITH CA/6454/2014 IN FA/1029/2013
WITH CA/2528/2015 IN FA/1029/2013
RAMA NANA TANDALE DIED THR ITS LRS PANDURANG AND ORS
VERSUS
GODAVARI MINOR IRRIGATION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
THRITS EXE. ENGINEER, IRRIGATI
...
938 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1734 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/16227/2016 WITH CA/1735/2017 IN X-
OBJST/16225/2016 WITH CA/1736/2017 IN X-OBJST/16223/2016
WITH CA/1737/2017 IN X-OBJST/16221/2016
KALYAN BHASKARRAO MANE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,MINOR IRRIGATION
DIVISION,BEEDAND ANR
...
939 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1812 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/26466/2016
RAJU DEVIDAS CHAVAN
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. COLLECTOR, LATUR AND
ANR
...
940 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.2596 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/34642/2016
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
7 9918.2016CA.doc
GIRIDHAR BHANUDAS PULLE AND OTHERS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
941 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.3033 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5012/2017 WITH CA/3034/2017 IN X-
OBJST/5017/2017 WITH CA/3035/2017 IN X-OBJST/4987/2017
WITH CA/3036/2017 IN X-OBJST/4985/2017 WITH CA/3037/2017
IN X-OBJST/5033/2017 WITH CA/3038/2017 IN X-
OBJST/4967/2017 WITH CA/3039/2017 IN X-OBJST/4996/2017
WITH CA/3041/2017 IN X-OBJST/5031/2017 WITH CA/3042/2017
IN X-OBJST/5026/2017 WITH CA/3043/2017 IN X-
OBJST/5035/2017 WITH CA/3044/2017 IN X-OBJST/5019/2017
WITH CA/3045/2017 IN X-OBJST/4965/2017 WITH CA/3046/2017
IN X-OBJST/4991/2017 WITH CA/3047/2017 IN X-
OBJST/4994/2017
VIRBHADRA SAMBHA BELURE (DIED) LRS MATHURABAI
VIRBHADRA BELURE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
942 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4739 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7927/2017
SHIVAJI SAKHARAM SHENDGE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV.
ANDANR
...
943 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4743 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7939/2017
DIGAMBAR SAKHARAM SHENDGE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. LATUR
AND ANR
...
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
8 9918.2016CA.doc
944 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4745 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7942/2017
NARHARI EKNATH SIRSATH
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. LATUR
AND ANR
...
945 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4746 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/38130/2016
BHIKA DASHRATH PATIL AND ORS
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR
...
946 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4766 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7919/2017
VENKAT PANDHARI SIRSAT
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. LATUR
AND ANR
...
947 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4778 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/9638/2017
HARISHCHANDRA GOVIND SIRSAT AND ORS
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT
DIVISIONLATUR AND ANR
...
948 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4784 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/4975/2017
GANESH TRIMBAK HINGNE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
9 9918.2016CA.doc
949 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4794 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7925/2017
BHANUDAS BAPURAO SHENDGE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. LATUR
AND ANR
...
950 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4808 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7929/2017
MAHADU RAM SIRSAT
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIV. LATUR
AND ANR
...
951 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.4972 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/10088/2017 WITH CA/2996/2012 IN FA/176/2013
WITH CA/3013/2012 IN FA/160/2013 WITH CA/3027/2012 IN
FA/168/2013 WITH CA/3037/2012 IN FA/171/2013 WITH
CA/3041/2012 IN FA/191/2013 WITH CA/3046/2012 IN
FA/173/2013 WITH CA/3049/2012 IN FA/167/2013 WITH
CA/13397/2017 IN X-OBJST/7877/2017 WITH CA/13400/2017 IN
X-OBJST/7874/2017 WITH CA/13402/2017 IN X-OBJST/7871/2017
WITH CA/13403/2017 IN X-OBJST/7978/2017 WITH
CA/13416/2017 IN X-OBJST/7980/2017 WITH CA/13417/2017 IN
X-OBJST/7976/2017
SANDIPAN EKNATH SIRSAT
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION
LATUR AND ANR
...
952 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5018 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/7851/2017 WITH CA/2968/2012 IN FA/179/2013
SAMBHAJI TUKARAM GITE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, LATUR MEDIUM PROJECT DIVISION,
LATUR AND ANR
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
10 9918.2016CA.doc
953 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5019 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/10416/2017 WITH CA/10194/2013 IN FA/3103/2013
NILKANTH VISHWANATH SONWANE
VERSUS
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANOTHER
...
954 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5037 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5037/2017
SANGRAM VAIJNATH WADKAR
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
955 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5038 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5023/2017
RAGHUNATH BHUJANG WADKAR AND ANR
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
956 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5039 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/4989/2017
MAHADAV PRABHAKAR HINGNE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
957 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5040 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/4978/2017
BALAJI NAGNATH WADKAR
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
11 9918.2016CA.doc
958 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5041 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5039/2017
RAJENDRA VIRBHADRA GHUME
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DIVN LATUR
(GMIDC) AND ORS
...
959 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5042 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5004/2017
VIDHYASAGAR DIGAMBAR HINGANE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
960 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5043 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/4982/2017
KISHOR GANGADHAR HINGNE AND ORS
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
961 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5044 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5002/2017
SHIRISH MANOHAR BELURE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
962 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5045 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5015/2017
NAGNATH MADHAV WADKAR
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
12 9918.2016CA.doc
963 CIVIL APPLICATION NO.5046 OF 2017
IN X-OBJST/5000/2017
VIJAYKUMAR SHIVNAND HATTE
VERSUS
THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, MINOR IRRIGATION DIVISION LATUR
AND ORS
...
Advocate for Applicants : Respective Counsel present
S/Shri A.M. Phule, P.M. Kulkarni and S.J. Salgare, AGPs for Respondent-
State (in respective matters)
Respective Counsel for Respondent/s present
---
CORAM : P.R. BORA, J.
DATED : 27th February, 2019.
PER COURT :-
1. All these applications are filed seeking condonation of
delay, which has occurred in filing the cross-objections by the
respective original claimants in respective appeals. The appeals are
filed either by the acquiring body or by the State Government against
the judgments and Awards passed in Land Acquisition References
(LARs). The period of delay varies in every application. In some
applications when the delay is of a shorter period, delay caused in
some of the matters is of a huge period. In every application attempt
has been made to justify the said delay and variety of reasons are
assigned.
2. Under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code of
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
13 9918.2016CA.doc
Civil Procedure (for short the 'Code'), a power has been conferred
upon the Appellate Court to extend the time to file cross-objection.
The Appellate Court can grant such further time as it may seem fit to
allow.
3. The issue as about condonation of delay in filing the
cross-objection was for consideration before this Court in the case of
State of Maharashtra Vs. Kalu Ladku Mhatre - 2011 (4) Mh.L.J. 741. I
deem it appropriate to reproduce herein below the discussion made
by this court in regard to the said issue in paras 5 to 7 of the said
judgment, which read thus, -
"5. I have given careful consideration to the
submissions. The first issue is regarding the
condonation of delay in filing the Cross Objection. A
Reference will have to be made to Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI of the said Code which reads
thus:
" Any respondent, though he may not have
appealed from any part of the decree, may not
only support the decree [but may also state that
the finding against him in the Court below in
respect of any issue ought to have been in his
favour; and may also 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."
6. Thus, under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order XLI
of the said Code, a power has been conferred upon
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
14 9918.2016CA.doc
the Appellate Court to extend the time to file Cross
Objection. The Appellate Court can grant such further
time as it may see fit to allow. The Sub-Rule (1) of
Rule 22 does not lay down that sufficient cause is
required to be shown by the respondent. As the said
Code vests the power to extend the time to file Cross-
Objection in the Appellate Court, it is not at all
necessary for the respondent in Appeal to invoke
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Section 5 of the
Limitation Act reads thus:
"Extension of prescribed period of certain
cases - Any appeal or any application, other than
an application under any of the provisions of
Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
may be admitted after the prescribed period, if
the appellant or the applicant satisfied the Court
that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the
appeal or making the application within such
period."
7. The last part of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order
XLI deals with the grant of extension of time for filing
of Cross Objection and Section 5 of the Limitation Act
deals with the extension of time to prefer an Appeal.
Section 5 of the Limitation Act incorporates a
condition precedent of the appellant satisfying the
Appellate Court that he had sufficient cause for not
preferring the Appeal within the prescribed period of
limitation. Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order XLI does
not incorporate the stringent requirement of
establishing a sufficient cause. Thus, a wide power to
extend the time to file Cross- Objection has been
vested in the Appellate Court. Though there is no
requirement of establishing sufficient cause within the
meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in the
application for seeking extension of time to file Cross-
Objection, brief reasons for delay will have to be set
out. A wider discretion has been conferred on the
Appellate Court under the Sub Rule (1) of Rule 22
than what is conferred by Section 5 of the Limitation
Act. The power to extend time under Sub Rule (1) of
Rule 22 of Order XLI of the Code has to be liberally
exercised in case where a Cross-Objection is sought to
be filed before the Appeal is heard for final hearing."
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
15 9918.2016CA.doc
4. In the aforesaid matter, First Appeal which was filed in
the year 2002 was listed on Board for final hearing, for the first time,
in June 2011. Thereafter cross-objection was filed. The reason, as
was assigned in justification of the delay caused in preferring the
application was that, the respondent had instructed his Advocate to
file the cross-objection, however, he was informed that the court fees
is required to be paid and for various reasons the court fees could not
be arranged by the said respondent.
5. In the matters which are before this Court for
consideration, similar reasons are assigned by the respective
respondents-claimants in justification of the delay caused in filing the
cross-objections by them. As observed by this Court in the cited
judgment, sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code does not
incorporate the stringent requirement of establishing a sufficient
cause. This Court has further observed in the cited judgment that a
wide power to extend time to file cross-objection has been vested in
the Appellate court. It has also observed that the power to extend the
time under sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code has to be
liberally exercised in a case where cross-objection is sought to be filed
before the appeal is listed for final hearing. Having regard to the
view taken by this Court in the case cited supra, though I am inclined
to condone the delay, while exercising such discretion in favour of the
::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
16 9918.2016CA.doc
respondents-claimants, it appears to me that since the respondents-
claimants did not file the cross-objection within the period as
stipulated in sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order 41 of the Code, it
would not be unjust and improper if they are disentitled of the
interest for the period of delay in the event their cross-objections are
allowed and consequently the amount of compensation is enhanced
on the said enhanced amount of compensation.
6. In the result, following order is passed, -
ORDER
i. The delay occasioned in filing the cross-objections by the respective respondents-claimants in the respective appeals, is condoned.
ii. The cross-objections be registered in accordance with law.
iii. It is clarified that in the event of their success in the cross-objections, resulting in enhancement in the amount of compensation, the respondents-claimants shall not be entitled for the interest of the period of delay on the enhanced amount of compensation. ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::
17 9918.2016CA.doc iv. Registry to list the respective appeals along with the cross-objections therein for final disposal in their chronology.
( P.R. BORA ) JUDGE GGP ::: Uploaded on - 04/03/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 22/03/2019 06:11:09 :::