SMT. SANTOSH DEVI Vs. SH. HARI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application filed under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the cross-objections, which are stated to be barred by 94 days. However, strangely, when this application was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the cross-objector/Insurance Company, rather than making his submissions praying for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections has argued that there is no need for any condonation of delay in filing the cross objections, as the same are within limitation. On more than one occasion, this Court called upon the learned counsel for the cross objector to make up his mind as to whether he wants to make his submissions for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections or not. Learned counsel for the cross objector has insisted that he shall not be making any submissions for condonation of delay, as the cross objections are within limitation.

(2.) It is pertinent to mention at this stage that as per averments made in the application for condonation of delay in filing the cross objections, they are barred by 94 days. Learned counsel for the cross objector has argued that summons stood served upon the cross objector-Insurance Company on 19.1.2018, but as it was not mentioned in the said summons so served on the cross objector-Insurance Company on 19.1.2018 that the matter was to be finally heard on a date already fixed by the Court, therefore, there was no question of there being any delay in filing the cross objections, because the limitation for filing cross objections starts running from the date when a notice is served upon the respondent from the Court, wherein it is expressly mentioned that a date has been fixed for the matter to be finally heard and such date is reflected in the notice itself. In support of his contention, learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of Honourable Supreme Court of India in Mahadev Govind Gharge and others Vs. Special Land Acquisition Officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, (2011) 6 SCC 321.

(3.) No other point was urged.