NHAI vs. Ramesh Chand & others OMP(M) No.103 of 2024 18.06.2026 Present: Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Manish Kumar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4. OMP(M) Nos.367 & 368 of 2026 The application {OMP(M) No.368 of 2026} has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application {OMP(M) No.367 of 2026} for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.10 Rattani Devi. It has been stated in the application that deceased respondent No.10 had expired on 17.06.2016, leaving behind the legal representatives as mentioned in para 3 of OMP(M) No.367 of 2026. It has been averred in the application for condonation of delay that since the death of respondent No.10 was not within the knowledge of the applicant, therefore, the applications could not be filed within a period of limitation. Therefore, the delay in filing the OMP(M) No.367 of 2026 is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection in case the applications are allowed. Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavit(s) and in view of the submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicant, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.10 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No.10(a) to 10(h), after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any. Accordingly, the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to file amended memo of parties within three days from today. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause title. OMP(M) Nos.186 & 188 of 2025 The application {OMP(M) No.188 of 2025} has been filed for condonation of delay in filing the application {OMP(M) No.186 of 2025} for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 Bhagat Ram. It has been stated in the application that deceased respondent No.5 had expired on 03.04.2020, leaving behind the legal representatives as mentioned in para 3 of OMP(M) No.186 of 2025. It has been averred in the application for condonation of delay that the factum of death of respondent No.5 was not within the knowledge of the applicant and the same came to the knowledge of the applicant when the appeal was listed before this Court. Therefore, the delay in filing the {OMP(M) No.186 of 2025} is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has no objection in case the applications are allowed. Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the applications, which are duly supported by affidavit(s) and in view of the submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicant, the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5 are ordered to be brought on record as respondents No.5(a) to 5(h), after condoning the delay and setting aside the abatement, if any. Accordingly, the applications are allowed subject to all just exceptions. Learned counsel for the applicant undertakes to file amended memo of parties within three days from today. Registry is directed to carry out necessary correction in the cause title. OMP(M) No.103 of 2024 The present application has been filed for condonation of 129 days’ delay in filing the present appeal. It has been averred that the impugned judgment was passed by learned District Judge on 29.08.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant has applied for certified copy of impugned judgment on 06.09.2023 and the same was delivered on 21.10.2023. However, the disposal of the case was not within the knowledge of the applicant as the same was never intimated to the applicant by its counsel. Earlier also, due to inefficiency and lackadaisical attitude of the said law firm, namely, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., as many as 362 cases were withdrawn from the law firm and allotted to M/s Nishaank Mattoo & Associates. Therefore, it has been prayed that the delay in filing the appeal is neither intentional nor willful, but the same has occurred due to unavoidable circumstances. Learned counsel for the appearing non-applicants has no objection in case the application is allowed. Consequently, in view of the averments as made in the application, which is duly supported by an affidavit and in view of submissions as made by learned counsel for the applicant, the present application is allowed and delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. Arb. Appeal No._______ of 2026 Appeal be registered. In sequel to order dated 30.07.2025, 03.09.2025, 25.09.2025 and 19.12.2025, consequential steps for bringing on record the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.5(f) have not been taken. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as having been abated qua respondent No.5(f). Heard. Admit. Issue post admission notice to newly added respondents except respondent No.5(f), returnable within four weeks, on taking steps within three days. OMPST No.16133 of 2024 Be registered. Heard Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount along with up-to-date interest by the appellant/applicant within a period of eight weeks from today, the operation, implementation and execution of impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023, as passed by learned District Judge, Mandi as well as arbitral award dated 05.09.2018 during the pendency of appeal is ordered to be stayed. Application stands disposed of. ( Romesh Verma ) Judge June 18, 2026 (vt)