616/1/1 measuring 2 acres 29 guntas and in Survey No.
Accordingly, the office called for the records and they were received by the office.
Subsequently, on 25.1.2002, the Division Bench permitted the cross objectors to move for an early hearing of the appeal.
3278 of 2001, as a result of which the appeal was liable to be dismissed.
Interim stay as prayed, in I.A. II/01 subject to the appellant depositing 50 of amount awarded with all statutory benefits etc.,
The Reference Court enhanced companypensation to Rs.3,50,000/ per acre, along with all statutory benefits.
On the same day, the Division Bench had directed the office to list the appeal for final hearing after the records were received.
616/1B/1 measuring 1 acre 2 guntas.
On 19.11.2002, the appellants filed cross objections before the High Court, under Order XLI, Rule 22 of CPC, along with an application for companydonation of delay of 404 days in filing the cross objections.
The award was passed by the Special Land Acquisition Officer on 13.04.1999 he companysidered the land acquired to be dry land and fixed companypensation amount at the rate of Rs.31,650/ per acre.
Both the appeals were heard together by this Court.
The landowners were on a caveat.
Against the said judgment, the State came up in the present appeal before this companyrt i.e. Civil Appeal No.
The respondents filed an appeal against the judgment of the Reference Court to the High Court of Karnataka on 12.09.2001.
Adverting to the facts of the present case, as already numbericed, the appellants had also filed caveat in the appeal.
The High Court also held that the landowners were entitled to interest with effect from the date of the award, i.e. from 13.4.1999.
Later, the appellant fell down and his leg was twisted and because of swelling and pain he was number able to drive and companysult his companynsel in Bangalore.
On the same day, the High Court, vide the second impugned judgment, also dismissed the cross objections filed by the landowners.
If the limitation of one month prescribed under Order XLI Rule 22 1 of CPC did number begin to run with effect from 12.9.2001, whether the alternative argument by way of explanation offered by the cross objectors would companystitute sufficient cause warranting companydonation of delay in filing the cross objection?
The High Court admitted the appeal on the same day and directed the office to post the same for hearing immediately after LCR were received.
In the appeal dismissing the cross objections, two points came up for companysideration before the High Court Whether the limitation period of one month prescribed under Order XLI Rule 22 1 of CPC shall run from 12.9.2001 as companytended by learned government advocate or from the date of service of numberice of date of hearing of appeal fixed by the companyrt, as companytended by the learned advocate of the landowner.
5113 of 2005.
GANGULY, J. Interesting questions involving interpretation of Order XLI Rule 22 of the Civil Procedure Code hereinafter CPC fall for decision in this case in which the relevant facts are that a preliminary numberification under section 4 1 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 hereinafter referred to as the Act was issued on 24.4.1997, for acquisition of land in Survey No.
