SARADA T A Vs. JAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) When the M.A.C.A. came up for admission on 19.9.2012, the learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the appellants intended to file an application for amendment seeking to amend the application filed before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal. Based on that submission, an order was passed on 19.9.2012 directing the appeal to be posted after the application is filed. On 31.10.2012, I.A. No. 2694 of 2012 was filed for amendment seeking to amend the total claim made in the O.P.(M.V.). On the docket of the application after the words "Petition for amendment", the words "as per direction by the court" are added in ink. There was no such direction by the Court. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that whenever any application for similar purpose is filed in a pending matter, the Registry will not number the same unless it is written that the application is filed as per the direction of the Court. We have noted this wrong practice being followed in several other cases. When such an endorsement is made, it would appear that the Court applied its mind and issued a direction to the party to do something or to file an application, while, in fact, no such direction would have been made. If an application is filed for a particular purpose, the Registry is expected to see that the application is in proper form and proper court fee is paid. It is for the Court to decide whether the application is to be allowed or not. Insisting on writing the words "as directed by the court" as a precondition for numbering the I.A. is not supported by any law or rule. R.83 of the Rules of the High Court Kerala which provides that "except with the leave of the Court, no affidavit which has not been filed in Court and of which copy has not been given to the opposite side at least three days before the hearing shall be used in any matter", does not apply to situations like the present one. The Registry shall not insist on writing on the application "as directed by the court" where there was no such direction by the Court. If the Registry feels that the application is not maintainable unless there was a specific direction by the Court in that regard, the Registry is free to return the application as defective, so that the party concerned may answer. Unless there is a specific direction by the Court, no party is entitled to mention in the application that it is filed "as directed by the court."