IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH RFA No.2281 of 2011 (O&M) and Cross-objections No.95-CI of 2011 Date of decision: 12.10.2011 Narinder Kumar & others ......Appellant(s) Versus Gurdev Singh and others ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the appellant(s). Mr. P.C. Dhiman, Advocate for the cross-objectors No.3 to 19, 21 & 22. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate for U.T.Chandigarh for respondent No.23. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral) CM No.5563-CI of 2011 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. Delay, if any, in making up the deficiency in Court fee is condoned. CM No.5564-CI of 2011 Allowed subject to all just exceptions. CM No.5562 & 5565-CI of 2011 There is delay of 18 days in filing and 515 days in refiling the appeal. Notice of these applications was given to the respondent. In the application for condonation of delay in refiling of this appeal, it has been mentioned that after receiving the case from the Registry, the file was inadvertently put in some other brief. In support of the averments made, the counsel for the appellant has filed his own affidavit. There is nothing on record to controvert the same. In view of the aforesaid submissions, delay in filing as well as in refiling the appeal is condoned. -2- RFA No.2281 of 2011 (O&M) Counsel for the parties are ad idem that the instant appeal is covered by a judgment of this Court dated 5.10.2010 passed in RFA No.2016 of 2010 titled as Sadhu Ram versus Union Territory, Chandigarh. In view of the stand taken by the counsel for the parties, this appeal is disposed of in the same terms as stated in aforesaid appeal i.e.RFA No.2016 of 2010. Cross-objections No.95-CI of 2011 Cross-objections have been filed on behalf of the cross- objectors No.3 to 19, 21 & 22. A categoric statement has been made by learned counsel for the cross-objectors that they are not seeking any relief against the appellants, who have filed this appeal purely for enhancement of compensation. Even in the cross-objections, the cross-objectors are not disputing the apportionment of compensation but are seeking enhancement of compensation. Counsel for the cross-objectors could not show any law that cross-objections can be filed in an appeal filed on behalf of the co- claimants, wherein no relief is claimed against each other. Not only this, cross-objectors have an independent right to file an appeal for enhancement of compensation qua their share. Thus, I find no merit in these cross-objections. Dismissed. October 12, 2011 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE