The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a satisfactory and properly explained explanation for delay in filing objections, as well as the importance of accurate and consistent dates in court documents and records.

( 1 ) THIS application has been field on behalf of therespondent Delhi Development Authority (hereinafter REFERRED TO to as thedda ) under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. In this application it hasbeen prayed that the delay in filing the objections be condoned.

( 2 ) IN para 3 of the application it has been stated that the notice offiling of the award was received by the DDA on 1/10/1992. It isfurther stated that the Executive Engineer of the Division concernedprepared his comments on the award on 15/10/1992 and the samewere sent to the Chief Engineer for approval on the same date. Thereafterthe Chief Engineer gave his approval on 4/11/1992 and the filewas sent to the legal cell of DDA. On 18/11/1992 the legal cellof DDA is stated to have given its approval. It is then stated in theapplication that the file was mixed up with some other file and came to thenotice of the concerned officer only on 5/02/1993 and thereafter apanel lawyer was briefed and objections were filed on 18/02/1993. Reply to this application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner and ithas been stated in the reply that the explanation given by the DDA is notsatisfactory and as such the delay should not be condoned.

( 3 ) MS. Ansuya Salwan, learned Counsel for the DDA submitted thatthe delay has been explained in the application and the DDA being agovernment department and the file having been misplaced, a liberal viewshould be taken and the delay should be condoned. In support of hercontention she has placed reliance on a Supreme Court judgment ing. Ramegowde Major and (Others v. Special Land Acquisition Officerbangalore, 1988 (2) SCC 142.

( 4 ) MR. Rajiv Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner, however,drew my attention to the notice sent by this Court regarding filing of theaward and from the notice I find that the notice in fact was served on thedda on 24th Septembar, 1992 and not on 1/10/1992 as stated inthe application. From the Court record I further find that the Senior Lawofficer of the DDA after the receipt of the notice, had even moved anapplicationor inspection of the Court record on 25/09/1992 andthe records were inspected on 28/09/1992. Since the facts werenot stated correctly in the application which is duly supported by anaffidavit of an officer of the DDA, I find no reason to allow this application. Even otherwise the delay has not been properly explained. In para 7 ofthe application it has been stated that the file was not available and gotmixed up with some other files and came to the notice of the concernedofficer only on 15/02/1993 but no affidavit of the concerned officerhas been filed to explain the delay. The time taken by the Chief Engineerfor recording approval has also not been properly explained. In this connection I mav refer to a recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Foodcorporation of India y. E. Kuttappan, JT 1993 (4) SC90. In this case theobjections which were required to be filled on or before 25/10/1988were filed on 6/12/1988 and the objections were held to be timebarred.

( 5 ) IN view of the above discussion the application is dismissed. IA 2226193

( 6 ) SINCE I have dismissed the application field on behalf of the DDAunder Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing theobjections, the objections being time barred are also dismissed. S. No. 2980-A192

( 7 ) THE objections filed on behalf of the DDA having been dismissed, the award dated 30/06/1992 is made a rule of the Court. Let adecree be drawn in terms of the award. The award shall form part of thedecree. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs. The petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the award till the date of the decree. In case the decretal amount is not paid within two months from the date of the decree, the petitioner will also be entitled to interest at the rate of 12 per cent per annum from the date of the decree till realisation.