TEJWANT SINGH Vs. SHEELA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against the orders passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Shimla, dated 17.10.2001.

(2.) It appears in a Claim Petition, filed by Sheela Devi and others (claimants for short), present petitioner Tejwant Singh was respondent No.l (hereinafter referred to as respondent No. 1). When the matter came up before the learned Tribunal on 21.4.2001, the learned Tribunal directed issuance of notices to respondents 1 and 2 for 28.6.2001.

(3.) On 28.6.2001, respondent No. 1 was served but was not represented or present. He was proceeded against ex parte on that date. Fresh notice was directed to be issued to respondent No.2. In the meanwhile, it appears respondent No. 1 Tejwant Singh having come to know that he had been proceeded against ex parte, moved an application on 26.7.2001 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. When the matter came up before the learned Tribunal on 24.8.2001, the Presiding Officer was absent and the matter could not be taken up on that date. The matter was taken up on 31.8.2001. On that day reply to the application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was directed to be filed on 17.10.2001. When the matter came up again before the learned Tribunal on 17.10.2001, it was found that respondent No. 2 was not served. His service was directed to be awaited. So far respondent No. 1 was concerned, his application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings was taken up and the said ex parte proceedings were set aside. However, simultaneously the learned Tribunal chose to struck off the defence of respondent No. 1 on the grounds that respondent No. 1 was served long time back and "he had ample time, of more than four months, to file the counter." The relevant portion of the impugned order reads: "Amazingly, reply to the claim petition not filed nor it has been annexed to the said application, which was filed on 26.7.2001. Since service upon the first respondent was effected on 13.6.2001 and he had ample time of more than four months to file the counter, I think that it is a fit case where the defence of the first respondent should be struck off. Ordered accordingly." Sh. G.C. Gupta, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent -claimant candidly and fairly states that it was not possible to support the impugned order. Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that the impugned order of the learned Tribunal is illegal and unsustainable. In my view, he had no jurisdiction to pass such an order. Learned Tribunal travelled beyond his jurisdiction in striking off the defence of respondent No. 1.