PRAKASH Vs. UMA CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Head on M(C)P No.210/2003 & IA No.4649/2014, appellant's application for condoning the delay in filing this appeal, as the same is filed, barred by 416 days.

(2.) By filing the reply on behalf of the respondent No.6, the averments of the same have been disputed, stating that whatsoever cause has been stated in it, the same could not be treated to be sufficient cause for condoning the alleged delay as per requirement of Section 5 of Limitation Act and prayed for dismissal of those M(C)P and IA.

(3.) Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the aforesaid M(C)P and IA. In earlier M(C)P No.210/2003, it is stated that the impugned ex parte award was passed without serving any notice or copy of the claim petition on the appellant, the registered owner of the offending tractor, accordingly, the same was passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is further stated that soon after receiving the information of passing such ex parte award under bona fide advice the appellant has approached the Tribunal with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the above-mentioned ex parte award dated 14/09/2001. In pendency of such proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the Tribunal again on receiving the bona fide advice from the counsel to file Miscellaneous Appeal against such award, by moving an application for withdrawal of such proceeding of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, vide order 01/02/2003 withdraw such proceeding and thereafter, file this appeal along-with first application i.e. M(C)P No. 210/2003 under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the alleged delay in filing the appeal.