RAM SHIROMANI MISHRA Vs. SHIV MOHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is directed against the order dated 22-9-1995, passed by IIIrd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Satna in M.J.C. No. 28/95. The disposal of this revision shall also govern the disposal of two connected revisions, Civil Revision Nos.l848/96 and 1849/ 96.

(2.) The applicant filed three applications supported by affidavits of even number for setting aside three ex parte awards dated 4-7-1984, passed against him in favour of the non-applicants in Claims Tribunal Cases No. 126/89, 131/89 and 127/89 respectively. The case of the applicant was that none of the summons in above three cases was served upon him. Therefore, he was unaware about pendency of any claim against him. For this reason he remained absent and three ex parte awards, dated 4-7-1994, were passed against him in his utter ignorance. He received notices for appearance before the Tribunal in respect of the ex parte awards which were sought to be executed by the claimants on 8-2-1995. In this connection, he went to the court on the date fixed in the three notices on 8-3-1995 and upon inspection of record of cases, mentioned in the aforesaid notices, he came to know about the ex parte awards in each case. Thereafter, he applied for the certified copies of the three awards on 9- 3-1995 in each case. After obtaining the certified copies of the ex parte awards, he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.P.C. for setting aside the ex parte awards on 17-4-1995. He stated in his applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of C.F.C. in each case that he knew about the passing of ex parte awards on 8-3-1995. Then he also explained in applications under Section 5 of Limitation Act supported by an affidavit in each case that if we exclude the time for obtaining the certified copies in each case, then his applications for setting aside the ex parte awards would be within 30 days from the date of the knowledge of these awards, i.e. 8-3-1995. In the alternative, it was pleaded that the time requisite for obtaining the certified copies in each case should be excluded and it be held that there was sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of Limitation Act for not filing the applications under Order 9, Rule 13, of C.P.C. within the period of limitation of 30 days. Apart from the question of limitation, the applicant took a plea on merits in each case that it was upon inspection of the record that he came to know that some Advocate appeared on his behalf and subsequently he did not appear before the Claims Tribunal in each case. That is why three ex parte awards were passed against him in each case. The applicant denied that he was served with the summons of the Claim Cases. He further denied that he had engaged any Advocate on his behalf in the three claim cases. He, therefore, prayed for setting aside ex parte awards in each case.

(3.) The non-applicants denied the entire claim of the applicant on merits as well as contested his claim on the ground that all the three application for setting aside the three awards are barred by time.