CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2000) 07 P&H CK 0044

Union of India (UOI) vs Hari Singh and Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 13 July 2000 · Citation: (2000) 126 PLR 645

HON’BLE JUDGES
Swatanter Kumar, J
CASE NUMBER
C.R. No. 3865 of 1999

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 368 words

Swatanter Kumar, J.—This revision is barred by 23 days. An application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act has been filed for condoning the delay. Despite opportunities, no reply has been filed. It has been stated in the application that some time was taken in seeking legal opinion from the concerned authorities and thereafter some time was taken by the Director Defence Estate, Western Command, Chandigarh, to release the expenditure. The revision is barred by 23 days.

2.

As the facts, which have been stated in the application, have not been controverted, and in view of the law enunciated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in the cases N. Balakrishan v. M. Krishnamurthy (1999)122 P.L.R. 462 and State of Haryana Vs. Chandra Mani and others, , I am of the considered view that sufficient cause has been shown to condone the delay of 23 days in filing the present revision petition.

3.

Consequently, the application is allowed Delay of 23 days in filing the revision is condoned.

C. M. stands disposed of.

C.R.No. 3865 of 1999

4.

This revision is directed against the order dated 12th August, 1998, vide which the learned Additional District Judge, Hisar, directed the judgment-debtor to pay the interest as per the decree on additional amount as well as on solatium. This question is res integra and is pending decision before the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India by a reference made by that Court in the case of Kapur Chand Jain (Dead and Ors. v. State Govt. of H.P. and Ors. 1999 All India LAC 380. As both views have been expressed by the different Benches of the Hon''ble Supreme Court and the matter is pending for hearing before a larger bench of three judges, it will be appropriate for this Court to await the decision of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the above noted case.

5.

Accordingly, this revision is adjourned sine die with liberty to the parties to revive this revision after the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court.

6.

The petitioner shall be liable to pay all other amounts except interest on solatium and additional amount payable u/s 23(1-A) of the Land Acquisition Act.

7.

The stay application is accordingly disposed of.