- (1.) THIS civil revision has been preferred against the order dated 15.4.2005 passed in LA Case No.
(2.) OF 1982 analogously with LA Case No. 3 of 1982 to 10 of 1982 whereby the petitioners ' application under Section 152, CPC dated 8.10.2004 has been rejected on the ground of delay in filing the said petition and earlier rejection of the petitioners ' application having similar prayer. 2 The case of the petitioners is that about nine LA Reference cases were disposed of by one common order. According to the petitioners, though the said cases were disposed of by a common order, the award should have been prepared separately in each case but the award was not prepared separately. The petitioners - applicants had, thus, filed a petition dated 12.2.1993 under Section 152, CPC praying therein to amend the awards according to the requirement of law. The said petition remained pending for several years, as no order was passed by the Court below. Subsequently another application was filed on 27.8.2004 in continuation of the said application dated 12.2.1993. The said application was rejected on the ground that application dated 12.2.1993 was not available on record. Petitioners again filed an application dated 8.10.2004 in continuation with the application dated 12.2.1993 repeating the said prayer. The said application has been rejected by the impugned order on the ground of inordinate delay in filing the application and on the ground that the earlier application with similar prayer was rejected by order dated 9.9.2004. In this civil revision, the petitioners have assailed the said order dated 9.9.2004 on the ground that the impugned order is wholly arbitrary and passed without going through the record and without any application of mind. Learned counsel further submitted that after the order and award dated 14.4.1991 certified copy of the same was obtained and on perusal it was found that the award was not in accordance with law. An application dated 12.2.1993 was filed under Section 152, CPC praying for necessary amendment in the award/decree. Learned counsel submitted that the application dated 12.2.1993 was very much on record (being at running page No. 206 of the record) and without taking notice of the said application the order dated 9.9.2004 was casually passed rejecting the application of the petitioners on the ground of inordinate delay and earlier rejection of similar prayer. It has been further submitted that there was no delay on the part of the petitioners, rather the petition was pending for disposal by the Court. But the order dated 9.9.2004 has been passed stating that rto such application dated 12.2.1993 is available on record. Learned counsel contended that the reasons assigned by learned Cdurt below is contrary to the material on record and the same is wholly perverse. It has been submitted that after passing the common order the award should have been prepared in each case mentioning the particulars as" required in law and in absence thereof it is not possible to execute the said order/ award. It is the fault of the Court below and for the same the petitioners cannot be made to suffer. In view of the nature of the grievance, lower Court 'srecords were called for. This Court, on perusal of the same, finds that the petition dated 12.2.1993 under Section 152, CPC is on the record at running page No. 206; the Court -fees annexed thereto was also crossed and the number of Court -fee entries is endorsed on the application, which also is dated 12.2.1993.
(3.) MR . Manjul Prasad, S.C. (L and C) appearing on behalf of the opposite party has also fairly submitted that the application dated 12.2.1993 is on the record and award has not been drawn in accordance with law and the same required amendment. Learned counsel submitted that the order dated 9.9.2004 was passed ignoring the application dated 12.2.1993. Learned counsel, however, contested the case on the ground of long delay, yet fairly admitted that the delay is not solely on the part of the petitioners.;