S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.275/1994 Union of India Vs. Star Wire (India) Ltd & Anr. Dated : 09.12.2010 HON'BLE MR. MAHESH BHAGWATI,J. Mr. SS Hasan, for the appellant. Mr. S.Kasliwal, for the respondents. *** Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 20th October, 1993 whereby the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench allowed the respondents to file application under Section 17(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal, Act, 1987 read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay. 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that the original claim petition was filed by M/s Star Wire (India) Ltd. Calcutta, claiming compensation for short delivery of steel material. In this case, the consignor as also the consignee was the Steel Authority of India Ltd. and the destination was Bharatpur. Thereafter, respondent No.2 filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC imploring the Tribunal to implead him as party claimant. The appellant Western Railway opposed the application on the ground of limitation. The learned Tribunal allowed the prayer of respondent No.2 for filing the aforesaid application. Hence, this appeal. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned order. -2- 4. Learned counsel for both the parties jointly submitted that there were approximately 16-17 more appeals of similar nature, wherein the Union of India preferred appeals against the order passed by the learned Railway Claims Tribunal. In all those appeals, except the instant one, the appeal was allowed by the Single Bench of this Court and aggrieved with the judgment of the Single Bench, the respondent filed appeals, which also stood decided by the Division Bench on 4th August, 1998. Learned counsel for both the parties further submitted that all these cases were remanded back to the Tribunal for consideration of the application of the appellant No.1 (in this case respondent No.2) and the application filed under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1987 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of law. Hence, the instant case being of similar nature, may also be remitted to the learned Tribunal for appropriate decision. 5. From perusal of the judgment dated September, 2, 1997 passed by this Court in S.B.Civil Misc. Appeal No.247/1994 and 15 other connected matters, it is noticed that the appeals filed by Union of India were allowed and the impugned orders stood set aside. 6. These judgments were impugned by the respondents before the Division Bench and the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 4th August, 1998 having considered all the aspects of the case in detail, remitted -3- the matters to the Tribunal for consideration of the application of the appellant No.1 (in the instant case respondent No.2) and the application filed under Section 17(2) of the Act, 1987 and to pass an appropriate order in accordance with the law. Since the facts of the instant case are also admittedly similar, hence, this case also deserves to be remitted on the same footing to the learned Tribunal. 7. In view of above, the impugned order dated 20th October, 1993 stands set aside and the matter is remitted to the learned Railway Claims Tribunal, Jaipur Bench for passing the appropriate order on the applications of respondent No.2 in accordance with the law after affording an opportunity of being heard to both the parties. 8. The appeal stands disposed of accordingly. 9. The record of the Tribunal be sent back forthwith. (MAHESH BHAGWATI)J. Pcg