JAMEELA BEGUM Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the impugned order, in all these appeals application of the claimants/appellants under Rule 18(2) of the Railway Claims Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules' for short), for restoration of claim petitions filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal, were dismissed. Since common questions are involved, in all the appeals, they are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) UNDISPUTABLY , the petitioner Khudabaksh filed several claim petitions, under the Indian Railways Act, claiming damages before the Railway Claims Tribunal, Bhopal. Notice of the said claim petitions were also served on the respondents. However, the said claim petitions were dismissed on account of non -prosecution in the absence of the petitioner and his Counsel. O.A. No. 240/ 1992, O.A. No. 241/1992, O.A. No. 242/1992, O.A. No. 245/1992 and O.A. No. 246/1992 were dismissed on 1.3.1996, while O.A. No. 244/1992 and O.A. No. 243/1992 were so dismissed on 27.2.1996. Application for restoration in O.A. No. 244/1992 was filed on 17.5.1996, while applications for restoration of remaining original applications as above, were filed on 4.4.1996. The said applications were accompanied by an application under Rule 44 of the Rules, for condonation of delay in filing the said applications. Both the above applications were accompanied by affidavits of claimant/petitioner.

(3.) THE learned Tribunal has observed in the impugned order that the petitioner has failed to show that there was sufficient cause for his absence or his Counsel, or that there was any reason for filing the application beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Rule 18(2) of the Rules. Hence, prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay in filing the application for restoration and to restore the claim cases and rehearing thereof was disallowed. The original claimant/petitioner Khuda Bux died during pendency of the appeal and his Legal Representatives have been substituted in his place.