KULWANT KAUR Vs. BALBIR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision petition has been filed against the order of Mr. V. K. Jain, Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Hissar, dated 13-2-1981, dismissing the application of the petitioners to sue as indigent persons, in default.

(2.) Briefly, the facts are that Gurdip Singh was killed in a motor accident. Smt. Kulwant Kaur, widow, and Amarjit Kaur, minor, daughter of the deceased, filed a petition to sue as an indigent person to recover Rs. 1,20,000/- as damages on account of the death of Gurdip Singh. The petitioners had led their evidence in whole and the respondents in part on the earlier dates. The case was adjourned to 13-2-1981 for remaining evidence of the respondents and arguments. Mr. S. M. Anand, counsel for respondents Nos. 1 and 2 made a statement at the Bar that they did not want to lead further evidence. Mr. Rajesh Kumar, Advocate, then stated that Mr, Chetal Advocate of the petitioners had instructed Mr. Jaimal Singh Advocate to appear to his behalf and make a request for adjournment. He further stated that Mr. Jaimal Singh was not present and clerk of Mr. Chetal had asked to appear in the case and seek adjournment. The learned Additional District Judge declined to do so and dismissed the application in default on the ground that he was not instructed by a duly authorised person on behalf of the petitioners. They have come up in revision against the order of the Additional District Judge to this Court.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the learned Additional District Judge in view of the fact that the parties had concluded the evidence, could not dismiss the petition for want of instructions under O. 17, R. 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with O. 9 of the Code. In support of his contention he makes reference to Rafiq v. Munshi Lal, AIR 1981 SC. 1400.