NHAI vs. Amit & ors. OMP(M) No. 312 of 2024 6.10.2026 Present: Ms. Sneh Bhimta, Advocate vice Ms. Shreya Chauhan, Advocate, for the applicant. Mr. Malay Kaushal, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 to 6, 7(i) to 7(iii). Respondent No. 8 is stated to have expired. OMP(M) Nos. 496 of 2025 and 379 of 2026 By way of present applications, a prayer has been made to bring on record the LRs of deceased respondent No. 8, who, as per the application, under Order 22 Rule 4 & 9 CPC, has expired on 11.10.2011, prior to filing of the present appeal. As per the application, respondent No. 8 Sukla Devi has left behind her LRs, whose names have been mentioned in para-3 of OMP(M) No. 496 of 2025. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No. 1 to 6, 7(i) to 7(iii) has pointed out that proposed LRs, are already on record, as respondents No. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7(i) to 7(iii). Meaning thereby, estate of deceased respondent No. 8 Sukla Devi has duly been represented by the aforesaid respondents. If the facts and circumstances of the present case are seen in the light of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in a case titled as, ‘Kishorilal (D) through LRs vs. Gopal, 2026 INSC 48, then, instead of bringing on record the LRs of respondent No. 8, her name is required to be deleted, as her estate is being represented by her LRs. Relevant paragraph-40 of the judgment is reproduced as under: “40. The decision in Dwarka Prasad (supra), relied by the learned counsel for respondents, in our view, is not of much help to the respondents because in that case the vendor's interest was not represented at all. Whereas in the present case, three out of four legal heirs of Kishorilal (i.e., the vendor) were already on record. In our view, there is a clear distinction between non-substitution of the legal representatives/ legal heirs of a deceased party and non-substitution of one of the heirs of a deceased party. In the latter, if the interest of the deceased party is sufficiently represented by other heirs/ legal representatives on record, there will be no abatement as was held in Mahabir Prasad (supra) and Bhurey Khan (supra). Therefore, in our view, Dwarka Prasad's decision is distinguishable on facts. High Court's final decision is hit by principle of res judicata.” (self emphasis supplied) In view of the averments made in the application, this Court is satisfied that there are sufficient grounds for not moving the application, within the prescribed period of limitation. As such, delay in filing the application, under Order 22 Rules 4 and 9 CPC, is ordered to be condoned and the name of respondent No. 8, namely Sukla Devi is ordered to be deleted. The applications are, thus, disposed of. The Registry is directed to carry out necessary corrections in the memo of parties. OMP(M) No. 312 of 2024 In view of no objection made by learned counsel for the non-applicants, the application, under consideration is allowed and delay in filing the Arb. Appeal is ordered to be condoned. The application is, thus, disposed of. Arb. Appeal No. ___________ Be registered. Admit. CMPST No. 38238 of 2024 The appeal, preferred by the appellant/applicant will take sufficient long time, for its disposal. As such, during pendency of the appeal, execution of award, dated 9.7.2018, passed by the learned Arbitrator-cum-Divisional Commissioner, Mandi, exercising the power of Arbitrator, under National Highways Act, 1956, in Award No. 370 of 2014, is ordered to be stayed, subject to deposit of the entire awarded amount, alongwith up-to-date interest, within a period of eight weeks from today. The application is, thus, disposed of. Modification/alteration/vacation, on motion. (Virender Singh) Judge October 6, 2026 (kalpana)