Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 1214 (DEL)

JAGMOHAN v. UOI

2006-07-25

MUKUL MUDGAL, S.MURLIDHER RAO

body2006
S. MURALIDHAR J. ( 1 ) THIS is an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9 and Section 152 and 153 read with Section 151 CPC praying for substitution of legal heirs of appellant no. 2 in RFA No. 623 of 1988 and to modify and correct judgment and decree dated 25. 11. 1999 in RFA No. 623 of 1998 to the effect that in the place of deceased appellant No. 2, Shri Nihal Singh, the names of his legal heirs as mentioned in para 4 of the application may be substituted. This application was filed on 24. 4. 2006. ( 2 ) THE learned counsel for the applicants has drawn our attention to an order dated 17. 7. 98 passed by Division Bench of this Court in CM No. 886-887/98 in RFA No. 212 of 1992 where the substitution of certain appellants had been allowed after the final judgment without any pre condition. ( 3 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance on the judgments of this court in Chander v. UOI 122 (2005) Delhi Law times 517 (FB), Kanwar Singh v. UOI 120 (2005) DLT 348 (DB), order dated 25. 8. 2005 in CM No. 1765-66 and 3513 of 2005 in RFA No. 107/1986, judgment dated 17. 3. 2005 in LPA 87 of 1981 and orders dated 10. 3. 2005 in the same matter. Counsel for the respondents contends that it has been the consistent practice of this Court that where the party seeking relief of enhanced compensation approaches the court late, the interest for the period of delay cannot be awarded to such party. ( 4 ) WE have perused the judgments and orders cited and find force in the contention of learned counsel for the respondent. Although in the order dated 17. 7. 1998 of Division Bench of this Court the substitution of legal heirs was allowed without any pre condition, it appears that the court there was not considering the question of payment of interest for the period of delay in approaching the court for substitution. On the other hand, the Full Bench of this Court in Chander v. UOI (supra) made it clear that where the delay was on account of the claimant, interest for the period of delay should be declined. On the other hand, the Full Bench of this Court in Chander v. UOI (supra) made it clear that where the delay was on account of the claimant, interest for the period of delay should be declined. More particularly in the context of legal representatives of the deceased/claimants being brought on record in land acquisition compensation cases, a series of orders were made on 10. 3. 2005 in LPA No. 87 of 1981 and a sample of one such order reads as under:"cm No. 1657/2000 this is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased appellant no. 1. There has been inordinate delay in filing the application being 796 days. However, in the interest of justice this application is allowed subject to the condition that the concerned appellants shall not be entitled to interest on any enhancement for the period of delay in preferring the application for impleadment of the legal representatives. " ( 5 ) FURTHER in Kanwar Singh v. UOI 120 (2005) Delhi Law Times 348 (DB) a division Bench of this Court reiterated this position by observing thus:"it has been the consistent practice of this Court in a number of matters that wherever such applications have been filed belatedly, the same are allowed only subject to the restriction of non-grant of interest for the period of delay from the date of filing of the appeal till the date of filing of the application. This view is based on the fact that in respect of matters of interest, the same is the discretion of the Court and this discretion has been so exercised since the Government cannot be burdened with the interest costs in respect of a claimant who has chosen not to claim the amount before the competent court. The matter of grant of interest is in the discretion of the Court and the Supreme court in Raghubans Narain Singh v. The Uttar Pradesh Government through collector of Bijnor, AIR 1967 SC 465 has held by reference to the language of section 28 of the Act that the words "may direct" means that it is discretionary on the part of the Court to grant or to refuse to grant interest. " ( 6 ) WE are inclined and in deed bound to follow the reasoning of the Full bench in Chander v. UOI and the Division Bench in Kanwar Singh v. UOI in the present case. ( 7 ) WE notice that the appeal in the instant case was disposed of on 25. 11. 1999. Appellant No. 2 Nihal Singh had expired on 18. 11. 1993 itself and legal heirs ought to have been brought on record within 90 days of the said date. The present application has been filed only on 24. 4. 2006. Therefore, there is delay of several years in preferring the application for substitution, and the reasons for the delay are clearly attributable to the applicants themselves. In the circumstances, while allowing this application, it is directed that applicants shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay from 18. 2. 1994 to 24. 4. 2006 in preferring the application for substitution of legal representatives. Subject to the above directions, the application is allowed and the judgment and decree be modified accordingly and the balance payment be made to the applicant within three months from today.