SHIVSHANKAR Vs. SARJEET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) INVOKING the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (in short 'the Code') the petitioners-claimants have called in question defensibility of the order dated 9-5-2000 passed in MJC No. 14/99 by the learned VIIth Additional District Judge, Bilaspur.

(2.) THE fact as have been unfolded are that the petitioners as claimants filed an application under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') forming the subject-mailer of Claim Case No. 44/98. The aforesaid claim case was posted on 5-7-1997 for adducing evidence. As on that date the claimants failed to appear, the Tribunal dismissed the application. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code for restoration of the claim case. It was putforth in the application that the claimant No. 1, Shivshankar was suffering from diarrhoea and fever. He filed an affidavit in support of his application. The Tribunal took exception to the fact that no medical certificate was produced and there were other claimants who could have instructed their counsel to take appropriate steps. Accordingly, the Tribunal came to hold that there was no justification to restore the application. Being of this view the Tribunal rejected the application by the impugned order. The said order is the cause of grievance of the present revisionists.

(3.) I have heard Mr. Sanjay K. Agrawal, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Umesh Trivedi, learned counsel for the non-applicants. In spite of valid service of notice there has been no appearance by the non-applicant No. 3/insurer.