NUTECH SECURITY PRINTERS Vs. SUNITA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this petition, petitioner has challenged the validity of order dated 25th July, 2007 whereby the application of the petitioner under Order 9 rule 13 CPC was dismissed by the MAC Tribunal. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on the basis of service through registered post. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was that no summons of claim petition were served upon it. The A. D. card on the record of the Court bears signature of an unidentifiable person and there was no name mentioned against the signature on the AD card. The trial Court totally ignored this fact and proceeded ex parte against it. The petitioner has taken other grounds which are not relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition.

(2.) ALTHOUGH an order dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is an appealable order but the petitioner submitted that since this application was made in a claim petition under Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, CPC was strictly not applicable and the order on application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC can be challenged by way of a writ petition under Article 227. He relied upon ram Shiromani Mishra v. Shiv Mohan Singh and Anr. AIR 1997 Madhya Pradesh 202.

(3.) THOUGH the petitioner filed this petition challenging the validity of order rejecting the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, but the Counsel submitted that the vehicle of the petitioner was insured at the time of accident and it was the insurance company that was liable to pay claim of the LRs of the deceased. There was no issue before the trial Court at the time of rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC that whether the insurance company was liable to pay the decreetal amount or not. The only issue before the trial Court was that if the application under Order 9 Rule 13 made by the petitioner was maintainable or not. The trial Court considered the contentions raised by the petitioner regarding non-service of summons and found these contentions not tenable. Trial Court found that the petitioner was sufficiently served and was rightly proceeded ex parte.