Review application filed in sub-court held maintainable.

Raju, J.

The above two revisions filed under Sec.115 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be dealt with and disposed of together since they involve identical and common questions of law.

2. C.R.P. No.2536 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30.4.1996 in C.R.A. No.20 of 1994 in L.A.O.P. No.139 of 1976. C.R.P. No.2537 of 1996 has been filed against the order dated 30.4.1996 in C.R.A. No.19 of 1994 in L.A.O.P. No.140 of 1976. Both the above orders have been passed by the Principal District Judge at Pondicherry. The applications dealt with by the Court below, were filed under 0.47, Rule 1 read with Sec.151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The common averments that have been made in both the applications are that in L.A.O.P. Nos. 139 and 140 of 1976, the respective petitioners i.e., the deceased 1st petitioner in C.R.P. No.2536 of 1996 and the petitioner in C.R.P. No.2537 of 1996, were claimants and the matter was disposed of by the learned Subordinate Judge, Pondicherry. The matter has been pursued on appeal by the State and the deceased 1st petitioner in C.R.P. No.2536 of 1996 was the respondent in A.S. No.568 of 1983 on the file of this Court and the petitioner in C.R.P. No.2537 of 1996 was the respondent in A.S. No.570 of 1983 before this Court. While disposing of the main appeals, their lordships of the Division Bench ordered in paragraph 8 of the judgment as follows:

“So far as solatium and interest are concerned, we find that question has been referred to the larger Bench of the Supreme Court as to the applicability of the amended Act to the acquisitions made before the commencement of the said Act. We also find, in such cases the Supreme Court has given liberty to the claimants to ask for review of the judgment after final orders are passed by the Supreme Court. Following the said procedure, we given liberty to the respondents to ask for review of the judgment regarding solatium and interest payable under the amended Act. It is made clear that we do not decide anything about the right of the respondents to receive the said amounts at this stage.”

As a consequence of the above the present applications dealt with and disposed of by the court below came to be filed.

3. In the applications, the respective petitioners averred that the Supreme Court decision indicated was delivered and was reported in Union of India v. Raghubir Singh, A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933, wherein it was held that the benefits of the provisions of the amended Act would be available in respect of the appeals decided by the High Court from 30.4.1982 to 29. 1984 and since the appeals in these cases have been preferred on 24. 1983, they are entitled to claim the solatium as per the amended provision. It was also stated that the petitioners were not parties to the said decision reported in Union India v. Raghubir Singh, J.T. (1989)2 S.C. 427: A.I.R. 1989 S.C. 1933 and they were furnished with also the particulars relating to the cases pending before the Supreme Court relating to the point and consequently, they were not aware as to when the judgment was delivered. In such circumstances, invoking the powers under Art.2262 of the French Civil Code read with Sec.29(2) of the Indian Limitation Act, the applications were filed for reviewing the judgment and decree in L.A.O.P. Nos.139 of 140 of 1976 dated 24. 1983.

4. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit, opposing the claim. Apart from contending that the claim of the respective petitioners for solatium and interest under the amended provisions are not maintainable, the applicability of the French Code itself cases arising under the Land Acquisition Act was also disputed and consequently, it was contended that the applications review were barred by limitation.

5. The learned Principal Judge, Pondicherry, after considering the materials on record and the submissions of the parties, has held that the petitioners were barred by limitation. In view of the learned principal District Judge, Pondic