UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO. LTD. Vs. GUMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal is placed on the board as process fee and notices have not been filed since 29.9.1999 by the appellant. On 18.5.1998 in this appeal notices were issued to the respondents. After service thereof the appeal placed for admission on the board on 16.9.1999. The appeal was admitted and the Court ordered for issue of the notices to the respondents.

(2.) It is to be stated that prior to this date, on 14.10.1998 Shri K.N. Tewari put appearance for the respondents. The service was treated as complete. We do not find on the record 'Vakalatnama' or memo of appearance for the respondents of Shri K.N. Tewari, Advocate, and that is the reason that on 16.9.1999 the Court has ordered for issue of fresh notices to the respondents. The service of show cause notice was treated complete. She K.N. Tewari Advocate, did not put appearance on 16.9.1999 and the Court has to issue notice to the respondents. Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, contended that as Shri K.N. Tewari, Advocate, had put appearance, the process fee and notices were not filed. This contention is difficult to accept for the three reasons, first that Shri K.N. Tewari, Advocate has not filed any 'Vakalatnama' or memo of appearance; secondly the appearance put by Shri K,N. Tewari, Advocate, was only at the stage show cause notice, thirdly on the date on which the appeal was admitted, Shri K.N. Tewari, Advocate, did not put appearance and the Court ordered to issue notices to the respondents. Thereafter, K.N. Tewari. Advocate, has not filed 'Vakalatnama'. Last but not least, Shri K.N. Tewari, Advocate, did not put appearance for Shri Ramchandra son of Shri Narain Bairwa and Shir Vijendra Singh son of Shri Ram Singh, the proforma respondents. From the record of the appeal, out of which this special appeal arise, we find that he was the counsel for the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 only, i.e. the claimant. Even if, what it is stated by Shri A.K. Bhandari, Sr. Advocate, is taken to be correct the appellant was required to file the process fee and notices for two others respondents and that has also not been done.

(3.) The matter was placed before the Additional Registrar (Admn.) on 8.12.1999. Nobody was present on behalf of the appellant. In case what it is stated is taken to be correct, in that situation, it was the duty of the appellant to bring it to the notice of the Registrar (Admn.) then and there but that has not been done, nor at any stage any such application has been filed to consider the service of the notices on the respondents of the appeal sufficient.