Himachal Pradesh High Court
General Manager Northern Railways vs . Savtri Devi & Ors. on 2 March, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
General Manager Northern Railways vs. Savtri Devi & Ors.
.
CMPM No. 500 of 2014 02.03.2022 Present: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicants.
Mr. Ajay Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Atharv Sharma, Advocates, for non-applicants No.1 to 9, 11 to 17 and 20 and for proposed legal representatives No.10(a) to 10(c) & 18(a) to 18(d).
Mr. Adarsh Sharma and Mr. Sanjeev Sood, Additional Advocates General with Mr. Kamal Kant Chandel, Deputy Advocate General, for non-applicants No.21 and 22.
CMP(M) No. 139 & 141 of 2019 By way of these two applications, a prayer has been made to bring on record legal representatives of respondent No.10, who is stated to have died and also for condonation of delay in filing the application and setting aside abatement.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate, for the applicants has argued that in fact the death of respondent No.10, took place after the award was announced by the collector concerned and before the Reference petition stood instituted. He further submits that it appears that after the award was announced by learned Collector and after the Reference was made under Section 18 by the land owners against the award so announced, said respondent died but the factum of his death was not brought to the notice of the learned Reference Court and the present applicants also came to know about the death of the said respondent only after the institution of the present appeal when notices were issued in the application filed under Section 5 for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2022 20:10:49 :::CISLearned Senior Counsel appearing for the non-
.
applicants submits that taking into consideration the fact that this is an appeal which has been filed against the Reference petition so instituted by land owners as the interest of the deceased party was duly represented by the other land owners, therefore, it will be in the interest of justice, in case, the applications are allowed, as prayed for as the legal representatives of the deceased respondents have no objections in the same.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the stand so taken by the learned respective counsel for the parties, these applications are disposed of with the direction that the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.10 are ordered to be substituted as respondent No.10(a) to 10(c) in place of deceased respondent No.10.
As far as the prayer made by the applicants for condonation of delay and setting aside abatement is concerned, this Court is of the view that delay is not attributable to the applicants as far as filing of the present application is concerned and, therefore, no order is required to be passed in this regard.
In other words, the appeal cannot be said to have abated nor the application qua respondent No.10 is time barred. Ordered accordingly.
CMP(M) No. 142 & 143 of 2019 By way of these two applications, a prayer has been made to bring on record legal representatives of deceased ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2022 20:10:49 :::CIS respondent No.18, who is stated to have died during the .
pendency of the Reference petition itself and also for condonation of delay in filing the appeal and setting abatement.
Mr. Rahul Mahajan, learned counsel for the applicants has submits that as the respondent in issue has died during the pendency of the Reference petition, the factum of his death came to the notice of the present applicants only when notices were issued in the application filed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. He thus submits that delay in filing the application is bona fide and not intentional.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the proposed legal representatives submits that he has no objection in case these applications are allowed, as prayed for, and the proposed legal representatives are impleaded as respondents in place of the deceased respondent.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as this Court is of the considered view that there is no delay attributable to the applicant in filing the application to bring on record legal representatives of the deceased respondent. Initial onus was upon the legal representatives to have had got themselves impleaded as party before the learned Reference Court.
Therefore, these applications are allowed and disposed of by ordering the substitution of the proposed legal representatives of deceased respondent No.18, as respondent No.18(a) to 18(d). It is further observed that as there is no issue of the appeal having been abated qua deceased respondent, who died during the ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2022 20:10:49 :::CIS pendency of the Reference petition, thus there is no requirement .
of passing any order upon the prayer so made by the learned counsel for the applicant. Applications stand disposed of.
CMPM No. 500 of 2014By way of this application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, a prayer has been made for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, as this Court is satisfied that the delay in filing the appeal is bona fide and not intentional. Accordingly, this application is allowed, as prayed for, and delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
Application stands disposed of .
RFA No. ___________________ Be registered. Heard.
Admit. Notice. Mr. Athrav Sharma, Advocate, accept notice on behalf of newly added respondents and on his instruction, Mr. Ajay Sharma, appears on behalf of the said respondents. List in due course.
CMPST No. 21947 of 2014This application is disposed of with the direction that in the event of the applicant depositing entire award amount with up-to-date interest with the Registry of this Court within a period of eight weeks from today, the operation and execution of the impugned award dated 31.03.2012, by the Court of learned Additional District Judge, FTC, Una, H.P. in Land Reference Petition No. 34 of 2008, titled as Savitri Devi & Ors. Vs Land ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2022 20:10:49 :::CIS Acquisition Collector & Ors., shall remain stayed. It is clarified .
that in case the award amount with up-to-date-interest is not deposited within the aforesaid period, then the pendency of this appeal shall not come in the way of the respondents for execution of the award is under challenge.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge March 2, 2022 (Vinod) r ::: Downloaded on - 05/03/2022 20:10:49 :::CIS