MOHD TOUFIQUE Vs. H L SOLANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has assailed the impugned order passed by 4th Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bhopal by which it had allowed the application of restoration filed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) NO exhaustive statement of facts arc necessary for the disposal of this petition. Suffice it to say that respondent No. 1 submitted a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act which was dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. An application for restoration was filed on 8-4-2002. In the application, it has been contended that, from an Advocate, respondent No. 1 came to know on 4-4-2002 that his claim petition has been dismissed in default on 3-9-2001. According to respondent No. 1, his Counsel did not inform him regarding the dismissal of his case and when he came to know about it, he contacted another Advocate and filed restoration application on 8-4-2002.

(3.) THE restoration application was resisted by the petitioner and it has been categorically stated in the reply that respondent No. 1 was not serious to his case and he was negligent. It has also been contended in the reply that the averments made in the application of restoration are vague. Respondent No. 1 failed to disclose the name of particular Advocate, who informed him, that his case has been dismissed in default.