Vijay Mahadeorao Kubade vs State Of Maharashtra Through The ...

4. The Reference Court (Court of Civil Judge), after hearing the parties   concerned,   partly   allowed   the   reference   and increased   the   compensation   from   Rs.   110/­   per   square meter to Rs. 210/­ per square meter. It may not be out of context   to   note   that   respondent   authority   had   not   raised any issue on limitation.

5. Aggrieved,   both   parties,   filed   Cross   appeals   being   First Appeal No. 116 of 1996 and First Appeal No. 31 of 1996 and the   present   matter   was   tagged   along   with   various   other similar   petitions.   The   High   Court   by   order   dated, 07.10.2010,   while   remanding   the   matter   back   to   the Reference Court on the issue of limitation, kept the matter pending before the High Court in the following manner­ On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the Record and proceedings along with the copy of Section 12(2)   notices,   which   were   sought   to   be produced   by   the   learned   Assistant Government Pleaders before this Court at 5 the time of the arguments that it would be necessary in the interest of justice to refer the   issue   of   limitation   to   the   reference Court from whose judgments, the appeals are preferred by invoking the provisions of Order   41   Rule   25   of   the   Code   of   Civil Procedure,   since   the   reference   Court   has omitted   and   failed   to   frame   and   try   the issue of limitation, which essentially ought to   have   been   decided   before   deciding   the reference applications on merit.

Hence,   by   keeping   all   these   first   appeals pending   in   High   Court,   the   issue   of limitation is referred to the reference Court for   trial   after   granting   an   opportunity   to the parties to amend the pleadings on the issue   of   limitation   and   also   to   tender evidence   on   the  said  issue.  The  reference Court   is   directed   to   try   the   issue   of limitation in all these cases within a period of six months from the date of appearance of   the   parties   before   the   reference   Court and   shall  return the  record  to this Court and   shall  return the  record  to this Court together   with   its   findings   on   the   issue   of limitation along with the reasons therefor.

8. Aggrieved by the aforesaid impugned order, the appellant is in appeal before this Court.

20. In the light of the above, it is to be seen   whether   the   conclusion   recorded   by the   Reference   Court,   which   has   been approved   by   the   High   Court   that   the application   filed   by   the   appellant   was barred by time is legally sustainable.

(emphasis supplied)

13. The appeals are disposed of in the afore­stated terms. Civil Appeal Nos.6006­6007 of 2018  (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.16339­16340/2018) (Arising out of SLP (C) No. ………….CC No. 17187 of 2014)

14. Permission to file the Special Leave Petitions is granted.

15. Application for deletion of respondent no. 3 in Special Leave Petition   arising   out   of   First   Appeal   No.   35   of   1996   is allowed.

16. Leave granted.

17. As   these   appeals   are   filed   against   the   same   impugned judgment   and   order   dt.   14.07.2014   passed   by   the   High Court of Judicature at Bombay (Nagpur Bench) and having the same question of law, these appeals are also disposed of in a sequel to the discussion set out above.