VIMALA DEVI Vs. RAJENDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2000, Vimla Devi v. Rajendra Kumar, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are: that the appellants were claimants before the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Bikaner (for short the Tribunal). The accident occurred on 19.6.1988. The Claim Petition No. 66 of 1988 filed by the appellants was dismissed for want of prosecution vide order dated 20.5.1993 as their counsel was absent at the time when the matter came up for hearing. Claimants- appellants who are the legal representatives of the deceased Jankinath alias Jankidass had not filed any application for restoration but they preferred a fresh claim petition on 28.11.1997. The Tribunal rejected their fresh claim petition holding that the claimants have not made out sufficient cause for their non-appearance on 20.5.1993 and, therefore, the fresh claim petition filed by them is not maintainable. The fresh claim petition was dismissed by invoking the provisions of Order 7, rule 11, Civil Procedure Code.

(3.) Order 7, rule 11 (d), Civil Procedure Code specifically provides that the plaint shall be rejected in cases where the suit appears from the statement in the plaint to be barred by any law. Thereafter, the claimants-appellants filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1268 of 2000 before this court, which came to be dismissed by this court vide its order dated 4.5.2000. The learned single Judge held that it is true that Honble Supreme Court in case of Dhannalal v. D.P. Vijayvargiya, 1996 ACJ 1013 (SC), held that the provisions of Motor Vehicles (Amendment) Act, 1994 will apply retrospectively. It was further held: