Cross-Objections--Limitation for filing cross objections in Appeal--Limitation of 30 days starts from date of notice of hearing of the appeal and not from the date of notice of the appeal filed by due opposite party

JUDGMENT

Mrs. Rekha Mittal, J.:- Union of India filed FAO No.315 of 2002 to challenge award dated 03.01.2001 passed by the Arbitrator i.e. District Judge, Ludhiana exercising the powers of Arbitrator under the Requisitioning and Acquisition of Immovable Property Act in respect of land falling in village Gill, requisitioned under the Defence of India Act, 1915. During pendency of the appeal aforesaid, the respondent/land owners whose land was requisitioned filed cross objections in the year 2013 for grant of compensation along with solatium and interest in the light of enhancement of compensation by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide order dated 05.07.2006 passed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.S. Narang in the case of other land owners whose land was requisitioned simultaneously.

2. Counsel representing the Union of India has seriously resisted claim of the cross objectors on the premise that cross objections preferred in the year 2013 are clearly barred by limitation. It is argued that the cross objectors have not filed an application for condonation of delay of more than 10 years and allegations raised in para 1 of the cross objections are patently false when examined in the light of facts on record that the cross objector caused appearance in the appeal through a counsel on 01.04.2002 and the period of limitation to file cross objections would start from that day. In support of his contention, he has heavily relied upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Mahadev Govind and others VS. Special Land Acquisition officer, Upper Krishna Project, Jamkhandi, Karnataka, with connected case, 2011(3) Civil Court Cases 575.

3. Another submission made by counsel is that cross objections can be continued even if the appeal is dismissed provided the cross objections are filed within limitation prescribed for an appeal or within the extended period if the appeal was valid and filed within limitation. For this purpose, reference has been made to judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Municipal Corporation of Delhi and others VS. Intnl. Security & Intelligence Agency Ltd., 2003(1) RCR (Civil) 757. According to counsel, the cross objectors caused appearance through counsel on 01.04.2002, sought time for filing reply to application vide order date 31.10.2002. Application for condonation of delay of 323 days in filing the appeal was allowed in presence of counsel for the cross objectors on 12.05.2005 and on the same very day, the appeal was admitted. It is argued with vehemence that keeping in view the aforesaid when examined in the light of judgment in Mahadev Govind Gharge and other’s case (supra), the cross objections are liable to be rejected outrightly being barred by limitation.

4. Counsel representing the cross objectors, on the contrary, would argue that limitation of 30 days to file cross objections under Order 41 Rule 22 CPC would start from the date of notice of hearing of the appeal to the respondents therein. It is vehemently argued that as in the present case, no notice of hearing of the appeal was given to the cross objectors at any point of time much less before filing the cross objections in the year 2013 when the appeal was lying admitted, cross objections are very much within limitation. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the Division Bench judgment of Gujarat High Court Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. VS. Alpaben Wd/o Jigishbhai N. Dalal, 2009 ACJ 1423. Further reference has been made to judgments of this Court The Union Territory of Chandigarh VS. Bachna and others, 1981 RLR 278 and State of Haryana VS. Khalsa High School, 1985(2) PLR 335. Counsel has further submitted that even if the appeal preferred by Union of India has been dismissed as withdrawn, the cross objections are still to be heard and decided on merits. For this purpose, reliance has been placed upon judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court Hari Shankar Rastogi VS. Sham Manohar and others, 2005(2) RCR (Civil) 362.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties,