BHARAT LAL Vs. SRIOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Jai Prakash Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant and perused the order impugned dated 4.3.1998 rejecting the application moved by the appellant under Order IX, rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. I have also perused the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules').

(2.) After coming into force the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the State of Rajasthan in exercise of powers conferred under sections 8 (3), 28, 38, 65, 95, 96, 107, 111, 138, 146, 176, 201, 211 and 213 of the Motor Vehicles Act, has framed the Rules. The State Government while doing so has framed rule 10.28 prescribing the procedure to be followed by the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunals in holding inquiries and has specifically made a mention that only certain provisions of the Civil Procedure Code would be made applicable before every Claims Tribunal. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid rule 10.28 makes it specific that all provisions of Order IX of Civil Procedure Code are made applicable before every Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal but, if any order is passed under Order IX, Civil Procedure Code by such Tribunal then such order is not made appealable under Order XLIII, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code because the provisions of Order XLIII of Civil Procedure Code are not extended under Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990. Thus, an appeal filed before this court under Order XLIII, rule 1, Civil Procedure Code is not maintainable.

(3.) Before concluding decision on the topic it is observed that where there is a wrong, there is a remedy. Any person aggrieved from an order passed under Order IX of Civil Procedure Code by a Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal is entitled to file writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution which provides that every High Court shall have superintendence over all courts and Tribunals throughout the territories in relation to which it exercises jurisdiction.