UNION OF INDIA Vs. SUSHIL KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but common issue involved in all these bunch of Misc. Cases/ Interim applications is whether the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 can be resorted to for condoning the delay in filing the appeal under Section 23 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987.

(2.) Heard Mr. B. Sarmah, Mr. D.K. Dey and Mrs. U. Chakraborty, the learned counsels appearing for the applicants in all the cases. Also heard Ms. M. Sarma, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in all these cases.

(3.) At the outset and before the commencement of the argument, the learned counsel for the respondent has raised a preliminary issue that all the interim applications have become infructuous because during the pendency of this applications, the applicant/appellant i.e. the Railways representing the Union of India have made payment of the claim, which are the subject matter of all the connected appeals. It is submitted that for various reasons, the respondents in all these cases had filed Original Applications before the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati, claiming money in respect of freight charges. It is, therefore, submitted that even if the delay is condoned and the appeal is heard on merit, it would only be an academic exercise as after payment of money, the connected appeals have become infructuous. In response to the said submissions made by the learned counsel for the respondents, the learned counsel for the applicants submit that they have no instructions in the matter. However, they pray for the hearing so that the issue which has been raised herein as aforesaid can be settled.