Raj Rani & Ors v. Union of India & Anr

ORDER %

03.10.2012 CM No.17387/2012 (u/S 151 CPC^ Allowed, subjectto alljust exceptions. CM No. 17386/2012 (u/S 5 of Limitation Act. 1963 r/w Sec. 151 CPC) To seekcondonationof delay of sixteendays' delay in filingthe accompanyingappeal,the reasonput-forthis that applicants/appellants are ladies,who had no occasionto appearbeforethe Court. Notice. Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate,accepts notice of applicationon behalf of respondent No. 1/UOI. Since it is not statedthat applicants/appellantsarepardanashin ladies, therefore, the delay occasioned is found to be disclosing negligencebut not gross one, therefore,this applicationis allowedand Page1 ly delay of sixteen days' in filing the accompanyingappeal is condoned, whileclarifyingthatfortheperiodof delay,applicants/appellantsshall not be entitledto interestin the eventof theirsucceedingin appeal. With aforesaid observations,this appHcationis disposed of. LA.APP. 261/2012 Impugnedorder of 6'^ June, 2012 restrictsappellant'sclaim to interestunder Section34 of The LandAcquisitionAct, 1894 upto 18'^ December, 2007, on balance decretal amount in the execution proceedings taken pursuance to Reference Court's Order of 9^*" February, 2007 whereas, appellants had claimed interest upto 16^'' January, 2010. At the hearing, learned counsel for appellants had drawn attention of this Court to order-sheetof 16^'' January, 2010 of the Executing Court to point out that deposit of balance compensation amountof^42,720/-in pursuanceto decree of 9^*" February,2007 was made on the said date, i.e., on 16^^^ January,2010 and so entitlementof appellantsto interestis till le'*" January,2010 and so, impugnedorder declininginterestfor the period from IS**" December,2007 upto 16'^ January,2010 is erroneousand is liable.to be set aside and application of appellants under Order 21 Rule 1 of the CPC deserves to be allowed in terms of the prayer made therein. After noting the undisputedfactual position. Executing Court while relying upon Apex Court decision in IVO Agnelo Santimano Fernandes& ors. v. Governmentof Goa & Anr. (2011) 11 SCC 506 has concludedthat liabilityto pay interestsubsiststill compensation amount is depositedin court. Even counsel of appellantsrelies upon Page2 r afore-npteddecision in IVO Agnelo (supra) to claim interesttill 16* January, 2010. The legal position spelt out in IVO Agnelo (supra) needs no reiteration. The finding returned in the impugned order of balance decretal amount of ?47,720/- being deposited in the court on 18'^ December, 2007 remains unassailable and in view thereof, it is held that the ratio of Apex Court decision in IVO Agnelo (supra) has been correctly applied by the Executing Court and thus, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. In view of the aforesaid, finding no merit in this appeal, it is dismissed with no orders as to cost. JNIL GAUR) Judge OCTOBER 03, 2012 rs/pkb Page 3

$-14 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 261/2012 RAJ RANI & ORS. Appellants Through: Mr. V.P. Rana, Advocate versus UNIONOF INDIA& ANR. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sahay, Advocate forR-1/UOI CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR