KARSHANJI OLUBHA VAGHA Vs. PRATAP PRAGHJI SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In compliance of the order of this Court dtd. 27/7/2023, the Report of the Deputy Registrar with the communication of the learned Principal District Judge, Kutch at Bhuj is placed on record.

(2.) Both the applications, i.e. M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022 came to be rejected on the ground that the original records were sent to the High Court. This Court by an order dtd. 27/7/2023 had asked for the clarification from the Deputy Registrar, M.A.C.T. Branch Main, Bhuj-Kachchh to show any Rules or Circular to the effect binding the Judicial Officer to reject the payment application on the ground of original record being sent to this High Court. The report of the Deputy Registrar, M.A.C.T. (Main), Bhuj-Kutch suggests that he is not aware of the any such Circular or Rules and he has no personal knowledge. Thus, the orders both dtd. 21/4/2022 passed in M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022 are not supported by any Circular or Rules of the learned Tribunal.

(3.) Learned Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Hemal Shah submitted that the petitioner had approached this Court being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the orders both dtd. 21/4/2022 passed by the learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bhuj-Kutch in M.A.C.M.A. No.29 of 2022 and 39 of 2022. It is contended that even after passing the order of disbursement, the disbursement of the amount has not been carried out only on the ground that the record and proceedings have been sent to the High Court. It is further submitted that the petitioner's Advocate has been regularly attending the Court and since on one of the dates, the petitioner's Advocate had to undergo a medical operation and therefore, a colleague was looking after the said matter. On 21/4/2022, it came to the knowledge of the learned Advocate that both the M.A.C.M.A.'s were dismissed on the ground that the original records were sent to the High Court. At the time of accident, the petitioner was aged 19 years and used to work as a labourer. The petitioner has been before the learned Tribunal since the last 27 years.