FAO (Ord.)215 & 216 of 2002. 18.6.2008 Present: Mr. M.S.Thakur, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. AG, for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. Jeevash Sharma, counsel for respondents 3 to 16. Both these appeals are being disposed of by a common order, as they involve same set of facts and question of law to be determined. In FAO (Ord.) 215 of 2002, it is undisputed that the land of Shri Om Parkash and six others, all sons and daughters of late Shri Chhaju Ram, resident of village Jaigarh Bodhna, Tehsil, Chopal, District Shimla was acquired for the construction of Chopal Devat Marg Road. Reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act was sought by the claimants for the purpose of enhancement of the compensation. The matter was ripe for recording evidence of the petitioners. On 28.4.2001, an application under Order 22 Rule 3 and 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer that legal representatives of Shri Mela Ram, one of the petitioners be brought on record and the delay in filing the application be condoned. It was averred that Shri Mela Ram had died on 11.8.1998 and the applicants before the Reference Court, namely, Shri Dev Dutt Sharma, -2- son of the deceased and others were not aware about the pendency of the case etc. The learned Reference Court framed an issue as to whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in moving the application or not. The Court held that the application was not maintainable without looking into the substantive aspect of the matter. I am constrained to observe that the learned Court below, instead of adopting a justice oriented approach, has taken a hyper technical view of the matter in rejecting the application with a terse one line observation that the application(s) under Order 22 Rule 3 and Order 22 Rule 9(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure and Section 5 of the Limitation Act were moved after more than four years of the death of Shri Mela Ram which cannot be said to be a reasonable period. The learned Court should have looked to the fact as to whether the reason for the delay was bonafide or not and not to have launched itself into exploring the maze of technicalities in order to non suit the applicants. The petition under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act had been filed in accordance with law and within time. The reference had to be answered and not merely thrown out on a technical grounds. The orders in both the appeals are therefore, quashed and set aside. -3- The matters are remanded to the learned District Judge for trial afresh in accordance with law. The legal representatives of late Shri Mela Ram are directed to be brought on record of the case. Needless to say that the matter has remained pending in this Court for a period of more than six years, the learned District Judge shall proceed with expedition. The parties shall appear before the appellate Court on 14.8.2008. Records, if received, be sent to the Court of District Judge forthwith. The appeals are disposed of accordingly. All pending applications shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. June 18, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.