ORDER : 1. ADMIT. Learned advocate Mr. Gupta waives service of notice of admission for and on behalf of the defendant-original claimant. 2. The present appeal has been filed on curious facts and allegations made against the claimant-Ramanbhai Savjibhai Bariya. The appeal emanates from the judgement and award dated 16.03.2016 passed in WC (Non-fatal) Case No.5 of 2010 by the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner, Labour Court, Dahod. 3. It is admitted by the learned advocates for the respective parties that after the aforesaid judgement and award is passed, an execution application is also filed by the claimant being Misc. Civil (WC) Application No.23 of 2016, wherein a notice has been issued to the appellants for recovery of an amount of Rs.7,15,830/- by invoking the provision of Sections 152 and 154 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (the Code). 4. Learned advocate Mr. Raval appearing for the appellants has submitted that as soon as the appellants received the notice, immediately on 04.06.2019, they have intimated the concerned Mamlatdar, Rajkot City that in fact they have already settled the dispute with the claimant being amount of Rs.5,96,596/- and accordingly, a settlement deed was also prepared on the stamp paper on 16.12.2010. He has submitted that the appellants had also written a letter on 22.06.2019 to the Registrar, Labour Court, Dahod intimating that the matter was already settled and on 22.04.2010, the claimant has been paid the amount of Rs.5,96,596/-. He has further submitted that since the appellants were under the impression that the matter is already settled, in view of the settlement arrived at between the appellants and the complainant vide settlement agreement dated 16.12.2010, due to inadvertence they did not produce the said settlement on record. It is submitted that the appellants have already paid amount of Rs.5,96,596/- as per the settlement dated 16.12.2010 executed on Rs.100/- stamp paper, which bears the signatures of the claimant as well as the witness - Gangaben Ramanbhai. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval has further invited attention of this Court to page No.15 of the memo of the appeal, which is receipt of accepting the amount of Rs.5,96,596/-. He has submitted that the same also bears the signatures of the claimant and witness - Gangaben, who may be his wife. 4.1 Learned advocate Mr. Raval has further invited attention of this Court to page No.15 of the memo of the appeal, which is receipt of accepting the amount of Rs.5,96,596/-. He has submitted that the same also bears the signatures of the claimant and witness - Gangaben, who may be his wife. It is submitted that this vital documents were in fact are required to be examined by the Court below since the Court below has awarded the amount of Rs.3,73,277/- over and above the amount of Rs.5,96,596/-. Thus, he has submitted that the matter may be remanded so that the evidence with regard to settlement dated 16.12.2010 and receipt signed by the complainant dated 15.12.2010 (page No.15) can be examined by undertaking necessary procedure in this regard. 5. In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Ms. Gupta appearing for the claimant-opponent has submitted that initially there was settlement arrived at between the claimant and the appellants on 21.04.2010, which was produced on record of the Court below and since the appellants did not pay anything to the claimants, the suit further proceeded. She has submitted that the withdrawal pursis, which was filed below Exh.7, was not accepted by the Court since the appellants had not paid any amount to the claimant. She has further submitted that the appellants were very well aware about the proceedings before the Court below, since the application below Exh.32, the appellants have sought adjournment on the ground that the advocate engaged by them had passed away. It is submitted that thereafter, ultimately, the Court below had finally passed the order dated 16.03.2016 allowing the application filed by the claimant against the appellants and directed to pay Rs.3,73,277/- to the claimant along with the penalty of Rs.1,11,983/-. It is submitted by her that since despite the aforesaid judgment and award, no amount was paid to the claimant, he was constrained to file the execution application, in which the Mamlatdar, Rajkot City had called upon the appellants to pay the amount of Rs.7,15,830/-. It is submitted that at this stage, after receipt of the aforesaid notice in the execution proceedings, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay. Finally, she has asserted that for the first time, the settlement dated 16.12.2010 and the receipt dated 15.12.2010 in view of the settlement is produced before this Court. It is submitted that at this stage, after receipt of the aforesaid notice in the execution proceedings, an application was filed seeking condonation of delay. Finally, she has asserted that for the first time, the settlement dated 16.12.2010 and the receipt dated 15.12.2010 in view of the settlement is produced before this Court. Upon instructions of the claimant, she has asserted that in fact no amount of Rs.5,96,596/- is paid to the claimant and the receipt dated 15.12.2010 and the settlement dated 16.12.2010 executed on the stamp paper of Rs.100/- does not bear his signature. Thus, she has submitted that in wake of such documents, which are produced for the first time before this Court, the appeal deserves to be rejected. 6. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties and also perused the documents as pointed out by them. 7. The facts, as narrated hereinabove are not in dispute. The matter is stuck at the stage of execution proceedings, in which a notice dated 30.05.2019 has been issued to the appellants by the Mamlatdar, Rajkot City for recovery of the amount of Rs.7,15,830/- by invoking the provision of Sections 152 and 154 of the Code. 8. It is the case of the appellants that for the first time, after receipt of the said notice, they came to know about further proceedings and the orders passed by the Court below. It is asserted by the appellants that accordingly, on 04.06.2019 they informed the concerned Mamlatdar that the settlement has been already been arrived at between them and the claimant by paying him the amount of Rs.5,96,596/-. The communication dated 04.06.2019, written by the appellants to the concerned Mamlatdar specifically mentions about the notarized settlement dated 16.12.2010 with the stamp paper along with the serial number. 9. Thus, the sole issue in the present appeal hinges on two documents, which are produced on the record of the present appeal for the first time i.e. settlement on the stamp paper of Rs.100-/-, and the receipt dated 15.12.2010 showing the acceptance of the amount of Rs.5,96,596/ by the claimant. It is asserted by the appellants that both these documents bears the signatures of the claimant along with signatures of the witnesses whereas on the contrary, the claimant is denying his signatures, and having offered or accepting the said amount. 10. It is asserted by the appellants that both these documents bears the signatures of the claimant along with signatures of the witnesses whereas on the contrary, the claimant is denying his signatures, and having offered or accepting the said amount. 10. Thus, serious allegations are leveled by both the parties on the documents, which are produced on record for the first time before this Court in the present first appeal. These documents were not produced before this Court. This Court, in the proceedings of the present appeal cannot undertake the exercise of verification with regard to authentication and verification of the documents i.e. settlement dated 16.12.2010 and the receipt dated 15.12.2010 since the same need to be proved by leading evidence and necessary examination by an expert. 11. In these circumstance and in wake of the allegations and counter-allegations, it would be apposite to remand the matter to the Court below for the verification of the documents, since the question which will fall for consideration is with regard to the determination of the amount of compensation, since it is asserted by the appellants that they have already paid the amount of Rs.5,96,596/- and they are not supposed to pay further amount of Rs.3,73,277/-. 12. From the proceedings, as narrated hereinabove, it is noticed that the appellants have remained lethargic in pursuing their proceedings and the claimant has been waiting since 11 years for getting the fruits of his litigation, hence the appellants are directed to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- to the claimant within a period of 10 days as litigation costs. It is further directed that the appellants shall deposit the amount of Rs.7,15,830/- before the Trial Court. 13. It will be open for the appellants to file appropriate applications for bringing the aforesaid documents on the record of the WC (Non-fatal) Application No.5 of 2010. After such documents are brought on record, the Trial Court shall undertake necessary proceedings for verification as prescribed under the law. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances and the period of almost 12 years, it would be apposite that the Workman Compensation Commission, Labour Court, Dahod shall endeavor to decide such application within a period of 06 (six) months. 14. Looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances and the period of almost 12 years, it would be apposite that the Workman Compensation Commission, Labour Court, Dahod shall endeavor to decide such application within a period of 06 (six) months. 14. After the verification of the documents is done, and in case it is found that the documents or the signatures on the documents are fabricated, it will be also open for the Trial Court to initiate appropriate proceedings and pass appropriate orders as prescribed under the law against the appellant. In the alternative, if the Trial Court finds that the claimant has made any false statement and assertion with regard to the receipt of the amount appropriate steps shall be taken against him, for making false statement and misleading the Court, and for obtaining the award by suppression. Accordingly, it is also clarified that it will be open for the Trial Court to pass appropriate orders altering / fixing / granting / enhancing / denying the amount of compensation looking to the conduct of the parties. The respective parties are directed to fully cooperate with the proceedings. 15. After producing the receipt with regard to payment of Rs.20,000/- by the appellants to the claimant and receipt of deposit of the amount of Rs.7,15,830/- before the Registry of the Court below, the Registry shall restore the application being WC (Non-fatal) Application No.5 of 2010 to its original file and notify the same on its board. The said amount shall be put in a fixed deposit in the FDR in the name of the claimant, which shall be renewed from time to time till final disposal of the appeal. The receipt of the fixed deposit shall be retained by the Nazir Department of the concerned Court. 16. With these observations, the present appeal is disposed of. 17. As a sequel, the connected civil application also stands disposed of.