SANJAY SHARMA Vs. GULSHAN KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dismissal of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside exparte Award of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal on 22.2.2013 forms genesis of this revision petition. It is claimed that coming to know of the Award on 29.10.2008, application for obtaining certified copy of the Award was made which became available only on 8.11.2008 and application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed on 11.11.2008 and thus there was no delay. It is claimed that there has been no intentional delay in non-appearance before the Tribunal nor in filing of application for setting aside the exparte Award.

(2.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondent-decree holder has claimed that the applicant/judgment-debtor was well within the knowledge of the proceedings continuing against him before the Tribunal and intentionally did not appear and when the execution of the Award was reaching its climax, he approached the Tribunal taking it for granted that the exparte Award would be set aside. It is contended that application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is nothing but to delay and dilate recovery of the compensation amount awarded to the respondent-decree holder.

(3.) During the course of hearing, it has not been denied that the Award was pronounced on 22.4.2008 by the Tribunal. Applicant judgment debtor himself had entered the witness-box as AW1 and had conceded that even earlier to filing of this application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in execution of this Award his salary was attached as he was not able to satisfy the Award. In the face of this conceded fact of attachment of his salary, it is very difficult to believe his version that the applicant judgment-debtor was not aware of the proceedings in the Award of 22.4.2008.