( 1 ) THESE applications have been filed by the respondents in the main appeal with the object of claiming enhancement in the compensation awarded to them for their acquired land. The necessary facts are :-

( 2 ) THE (Late) Shri Shibu Ram Mittal, father of the Applicants/respondents and Shri Sukhbir Saran were co-shares/co-owners of undivided agricultural lands comprising Khasra Nos. 146 (12-0), 148 (5-5), 149 (4-13), 150 (4-0), 151 (10-1), 152 (4-19), 153 (4-3), 154 (6-6), 155 (0-6), 156 (1-10) and 157 (3-5), total measuring 56 bighas 8 biswas, village Chandrawali, Shahdara, Delhi, to the extent of half share each.

( 3 ) THE aforesaid land was notified u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 13/11/1959 and was acquired under award No. 1542 of village Chandrawali. References under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act were filed by both the aforesaid co-sharers of the land. The two references, being LAC No. 709/65 and 651/1964 were decided by Shri. F. S. Gill, the then A. D. J. , Delhi by a common judgement dated 26/3/1968. The learned A. D. J. enhanced rate of the compensation from Rs. 1250. 00 per bigha as awarded by the Collector to Rs. 5000. 00 per bigha.

( 4 ) THE other co-sharer, namely, Shri Sukhbir Saran preferred an appeal in this Court being R. F. A. No. 417 of 1968 - Sukhbir Saran Vs. Union of India, against the aforesaid judgment of the Additional District Judge dated 26/3/1968. A division Bench of this Court allowed the said appeal and compensation payable to the appellant was enhanced by modifying the award from Rs. 5000. 00 per bigha to Rs. 15 per sq. yard, vide judgement and decree dated 8/8/1984.

( 5 ) THE Union of India filed the present appeal (RFA No. 245/1968 Union of India Vs. Shri Shibu Ram Mittal) and also RFA No. 213/1968 Union of India Vs. Shri Sukhbir Saran, in respect of same acquired land against the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Delhi dated 26/3/1968. Shri Shibu Ram Mittal, the respondent in RFA No. 245/1968 died during the pendency of the appeal and the present respondents were brought on record as his legal representatives.

( 6 ) THE appeal of Union of India (RFA No. 245/1968) was dismissed for non prosecution vide order dated 24th January, 1991, CMs 184-185/1991 were also dismissed alongwith the main appeal. The respondents/applicants challanged the dismissal of CMs 184-185/1991 in the Supreme Court. The appeal was allowed vide judgement dated 20. 9. 93 and CMs 184-185/1991 were remanded to this court for decision on merits in accordance with law. These applications are now before us for disposal.

( 7 ) AT the outset the learned counsel for the appellant raised an objection that the application under Order 41 Rule 22 Civil Procedure Code is barred by limitation. Our attention was drawn to the provision contained in sub-rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order XLI Civil Procedure Code according to which the cross-objections are to be filed within one month from the date of service of notice of the date fixed for hearing the appeal. The cross-objections in the present case were filed on 19th January, 1991 while the appeal was admitted for hearing on 19th August, 1968. According to the learned counsel for the appellant, the cross-objections were thus filed much beyond the period of limitation and therefore, cannot be entertained. In support of this argument, it was further contended that the respondents had already put in appearance in the appeal in as much as presence of counsel on their behalf is noted in the order dated 30th April, 1987. The respondents had notice of the appeal and the cross-objections ought to have been filed at least within one month from this date.

( 8 ) IN reply to the preliminary objection the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants submitted that a closer scrutiny of the provision regarding limitation contained in Sub-Rule (1) of Rule 22 of Order XLI Civil Procedure Code would show that the limitation of one month prescribed in the said provision start