SAIF-UD-DIN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit for Rs, 105 50 has been brought by the plaintiffs against the Union of India on 3 -3 -65 in this Court. The suit was fixed for 20th May 65, notice whereof had gone to the Defence Secretary. Government of India with a copy of the plaint on 31 -3 -65. On 20 -5 -65 the Advocate General appeared for the defendant and wanted time to file the written statement He was allowed to do so within one month and the case was to come up on 24 -6 -65 for filing the written statement. After this order was made Mr. SSL Padroo Advocate accumpanied by S Nagar Singh Branch Officer 970 Works Eng. Section, put in his appearance and stated that he had been engaged by the Union of India, defendant Mr. Padroo further stated that the papers of the case were with him. Mr Padroo also wanted time for filing written statement On 24 -6 -65 it was pointed out that the learned Ad. General, who subsequently ! appeared for the defendant, had filed an application for stay of the suit under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act This application, it may be stated, was filed by the Adv. General on 8 -6 -65. Objections were taken from the plaintiff with respect to this application which they presented in the court on 6 -7 -65. The learned Ad. General then put in further objections with respect to these objections on 6 -7 -65.

(2.) THE question for consideration before me at this time is whether the suit should be stayed in terms of S 34 of the Arbitration Act. I have heard elaborate arguments on this point from the learned counsel for the parties. It has to be stated that the parties examined witnesses in regard to the matter of stay. The plaintiff examined the civil clerk of this court, Mr. Mohi -ud -Din and Mr. SSL Padroo Advocate The defendant examined S. Nagar Singh Officer I/C 370 Works Engineering Section The evidence of the civil clerk Mr Mobi -ud -Din is that he despatched the notice in duplicate along with a copy of the plaint on 31 -3 -65 to the Defence Secretary Government of India Mr. Padroos statement is with respect to his having appeared before the court and having sought an adjournment. According to Mr. Nagar Singh he appeared on 20 -5 -66 in the court, but he had no knowledge about the nature of the case. On 21 -5 -65 a letter from the Advocate General No. 93 demanded relevant papers from him which he handed over to the Ad. General on 22 -5 -65. If is not clear from the statement as to how the learned Ad. General knew about the case and its date of hearing as 20th May 65, or how Mr. Padroo came in to represent the Union of India along with Nagar Singh. Anyhow this matter may not be of very great consequence in view of the order that I propose to pass.

(3.) TO appreciate the argument of either side, firstly I shall enumerate what is factually necessary for a disposal of the application under S. 34 The claim of the plaintiffs as already stated, is for Rs 105150 and odd. The claim consists of two parts : one on account of compensation for the use and occupation of the house including the annexe and the garage and about 2 kanals under and appurtenant to the house at the rate of Rs. 50 per day from 1st March 62 to 20th Feb 65, i e., 1095 days which in all comes to Rs. 54750. Secondly compensation for use and occupation of 8 kanals and 8 marlas of garden and vegetable growing land valued at Rs, 168000 at 10% per annum of the value of the land from last March 1962 to 28th Feb. 1965 which comes to Rs. 50,400.