HIMACHAL ROAD TRANSPORT Vs. GURDEV KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has not deposited the amount in question. Mr. Khanna states that the amount was not deposited because directions were not given by this Court in terms of Order 41 (1) (3), Civil P. C.

(2.) IT appears to me that there is a misunderstanding about the ambit of sub rule (3). This sub rule finds a place in Rule 1 which relates to the form of appeal and what is to accompany the memorandum of appeal. In other words the appellant is required to comply with the full provisions of Rule 1 before there can be said to be proper appeal before the appellate court. Sub rule (3), in my opinion, requires the appellant to deposit the money in question before or at least along with the filing of the appeal. It is only when the money has not been so deposited that permission can be had from the court to deposit the money within the time allowed by the court or to furnish the security as the court may think proper. I do except the appellant, which is a public undertaking in this socialistic welfare State, to pay their dues promiply in the cases of motor accidents and not to delay payments under various pretexts. It to stated by Mr. Khanna that if this is the ambit of Sub rule (3), then the very purpose of filing the appeal is frustrated. I am afraid, it is not so. Under Sub rule (2) of Order 45 the trial court itself can stay the execution of the decree for sufficient reason. In these circumstances I would expect the appellant that they would deposit the amount in question in the cases arising out of motor accidents before coming to this Court in appeal since the trial Court can take care of the interests of the appellant in respect of the payment of the amount to the claimants. I hope that there will be no further misunderstanding by the appellant in future.

(3.) THE matter to be listed for admission on 11th May, 1983.