Jabar Singh vs Uoi
2008 Latest Caselaw 1148 Del

*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                           RFA No. 20/1996

%                                 DATE OF DECISION : 25th JULY, 2008

      JABAR SINGH                                    ..... Appellant
                            Through:          Mr. Naresh Mann, Advocate

                   versus


      UOI                                           ..... Respondent
                            Through:          Mr. Sanjay Poddar, Advocate


CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may
   be allowed to see the judgment?                             No.
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?                      No.
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest?      No.


                 JUDGMENT

MUKUL MUDGAL, J: (ORAL)

CMA No. 2624/2008

The application is allowed. The legal heirs of deceased appellant Shri

Jabar Singh are brought on record.

Let amended memo of parties be filed by the appellant within one

week from today.

CMA No. 2623/2008

We have gone through the content of this application and have also

considered the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in CM No.

11473/2007 in RFA No. 745/1995 titled Smt. Prakashwati vs. Union of

India.

The learned counsel for the respondent has brought to our notice an

order in CM No. 11487/2007 in RFA No. 517/1998 in which the applicant

has been deprived of interest for the period w.e.f 07.09.2005 till 31.05.2007.

The said order would have applied but for the fact that in that case the

application for bringing legal heirs on record was moved late, but in the

present case, the application for bringing legal heirs on record had already

been allowed and the applicants had been brought on record in the execution

proceedings.

In this view of the above, we are satisfied that the operative part of the

judgment in Prakashwati's fully covers the present case and interst would

be payable as ordered in Prakashwati's case.

Accordingly, the application is disposed of but with no orders as to

costs.

MUKUL MUDGAL, J

MANMOHAN, J JULY 25, 2008 rb