UNION OF INDIA Vs. RISHAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is delay of 2892 days in filing CM No. 345/2010 to seek restoration of the cross objections by the respondents.

(2.) THE appeal as well as the cross objections stood dismissed for non -prosecution on 17th August, 1995. The reason put forth for the manifestly inordinate delay is that upon the death of the first respondent in the year 2001, counsel for the respondents/cross objectors was apprised of it but the application for bringing on record the legal heirs of the first respondent was not filed by the counsel and in March 2009, the legal heirs of the first respondent learnt about it when they had known that other similarly placed claimants have received higher compensation upon the decision of their appeal by this Court, then the applicants had approached their counsel who due to his old age was unable to attend to his professional work for the last few years and had no knowledge about the decision in the appeals of the other similarly placed claimants. Thus application for restoration of the cross objections was filed in December, 2009 along with the instant application.

(3.) AFTER having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record and the decisions reported in Ram Sumiran vs. D.D.C., AIR 1985 SC 606; Yad Ram vs. UOI, 117 (2005) DLT 622; Jayakrishna vs. State of Orissa, AIR 1976 Orissa 203; O.P.Kathpalia vs. Lakhmir Singh, AIR 1984 SC 1744; Collector, Land Acquisition, A.Nag & Anr vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors., AIR 1987 SC 1353; State of Haryana vs. Chander Mani, AIR 1996 SC 1623; Standard Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Gyan Chand Jain & Anr., 97(2002)DLT 290; Rati Ram vs. UOI, 143(2007)DLT 426; Nand Kishore vs. UOI, 73(1998) DLT 108, I proceed to deal with the instant application in the light of the following pertinent observations made by the Apex Court in its decision in Balwant Singh (Dead) vs. Jagdish Singh and Ors., (2010) 8 SCC 685: -