NHAI Vs. Mansha Ram & Ors. OMP(M) No.152 of 2024 11.09.2025 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate, for the applicant/ appellant. Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.1 and 2. Respondents No.3(a) to 3(d) ex-parte. OMP(M) No.95 & 96 of 2025 These two applications have been moved by the applicant/appellant for bringing on record legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 with a prayer for condoning the delay in moving the application to bring them on record. The proposed legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 stand served. They have chosen not to put in appearance and have been proceeded against ex-parte. 2. Learned counsel for the applicant/appellant, however, informs that legal heirs No.3(a) & 3(b) are already in the array of parties as respondents No.1 & 2 and duly represented by Mr. Yuyutsu Singh Thakur, learned counsel. Learned counsel for the appearing respondents has no objection for allowing both the applications. 3. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and on going through the applications, I am of the considered view that delay in making the application to bring on record legal heirs of deceased respondent No.3 has been sufficiently and cogently explained. 4. Accordingly, both the applications are allowed. Since respondents No.3(a) & 3(b) are already in the array of parties as respondents No.1 and 2, therefore, it is only proposed respondents No.3(c) & 3(d), who would be reflected in the memo of parties as respondents No.3(A) and 3(B). Amended memo of parties is taken on record. Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. The applications stand disposed of. OMP(M) No.152 of 2024 5. Applicant/appellant seeks condonation of 154 days’ delay in instituting the main appeal. The applicant has pleaded that the impugned judgment was pronounced by the learned District Judge on 04.09.2023. Its certified copy was applied on 06.09.2023. The same was attested on 30.09.2023 and was received on 07.10.2023. However, disposal of the case on 04.09.2023 was not within the knowledge of the applicant as the same was never intimated to it by its counsel. 6. The application is with the further averments that the applicant became aware on 21.03.2024 about the disposal of the main case on 04.09.2023. On account of closing of the financial year, the empanelled counsel for the applicant throughout the State of H.P. were directed to furnish the information of the pendency or otherwise of the cases of the appellant. That it is only thereafter the applicant came to know about the fact that the instant case had been disposed of on 04.09.2023. However, this fact was not brought to the notice of the applicant by its counsel. 7. The applicant further submits that due to such inefficient and lackadaisical attitude of the said law firm/counsel, M/s M.V. Kini & Co., 362 cases pending in District Mandi have been withdrawn and had been allotted to some other firm. 8. The reasons for delay in filing the appeal have been attributed upon having no information about disposal of the case from the counsel conducting the said case. The applicant has demonstrated its bona fide by pleading that it has already withdrawn its cases from the law firm conducting the aforesaid cases. 9. Even otherwise, there is no opposition to the prayer made in the application. For the cogent reasons given and established in the application, the delay in filing the main appeal is condoned. The application stands disposed of. Arb. Appeal No. of 2025 10. Be registered. List for consideration after four weeks. OMP No. of 2025 (OMPST No.18859/2024) Be registered. 11. Heard. Subject to deposit of entire awarded amount alongwith up to date interest in the Registry of this Court within four weeks, operation and execution of order dated 04.09.2023, passed by the learned District Judge Bilaspur, H.P. in Arbitration Case No.78 of 2018 (National Highways Authority of India Versus Mansha Ram and others), shall remain stayed. The application stands disposed of. OMP No.595 of 2025 Allowed and disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua September 11, 2025 Judge Mukesh