COURT ON ITS OWN MOTION Vs. RAJINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN F.A.O. No. 242 of 2006 decided on 13.11.2009, this Court while disposing the appeal, held that:

(2.) PURSUANT to the notice issued to the Respondent, he filed reply. I have perused the reply and I am not satisfied that the Respondent has been able to make out a case for dropping proceedings for perjury proposed to be taken against him. His reply is evasive and not specific. In these circumstances, let appropriate proceedings in accordance with law for perjury be initiated against the Respondent by the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Shimla. The parties to appear before the Court on 30th April, 2010, on which date further proceedings in accordance with law shall be initiated against the Respondent. Let the record of this appeal be sent to the Court of learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal -II, Shimla, forthwith. It is clarified that in case the Respondent does not appear, his presence shall be procured through coercive process. This order does not pre -empt the learned Tribunal to arrive at its independent findings after due trial as I have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case.