VISHWAMBER VITHAL KANEKAR, (SINCE DECEASED), THROUGH LEGAL HEIR MILIND MADGUT, RESIDING NEAR MUNICIPAL GARDEN, UPPER BAZAR, PONDA, GOA Vs. UMAKANT K. KANEKAR, R/O AMBIKA BHUVAN, QUEPEM-GOA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellant/ applicant and Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3(a) and 5 to 10. M.C.A. No. 443/2011 has been filed by the applicant / appellant seeking the following relief:

(2.) PERUSAL of the impugned judgment discloses that the party nos. 2 and 5 i.e. respondent nos.1 and 4 herein had died before passing of the award. Admittedly, no legal representatives were brought on record in the reference. In so far as respondent no.2 in the appeal i.e. Kashikant Kanekar is concerned, he was shown ex -parte in the said case. It appears that he had also expired before the impugned judgment and award was passed. In view of the above factual position, Mr. that it would be just and proper to set aside the impugned judgment and award and remit the matter to the Reference Court. Mr. Pangam, learned Counsel for the appellant/ applicant submitted that the impugned award passed by the Reference Court is nullity in as much as the Reference Court has awarded compensation in favour of dead parties, which the Reference Court could not have granted. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance upon the following judgments :

(3.) PER contra, Mr. Teles, learned Counsel for respondent nos.3(a) and 5 to 10 submitted that no purpose would be served in setting aside the impugned judgment and award and remitting the matter to the Reference Court and the legal representatives of deceased respondents are free to make appropriate application for claiming the compensation awarded in favour of the deceased respondents.