BABU LAL Vs. RATTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 19.07.2006 whereby application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. Learned counsel, for petitioner submits that initially four cases were registered in MACT, Gangapurcity. It was then transferred to MACT, Hindaun without an information to the petitioner. In view of the above, he could not contest the claim petition and ex -parte award was passed. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed in ignorance of the aforesaid facts. If at all knowledge of the transfer of the cases was to the Advocate appearing for the petitioner then also negligence of the Advocate to put in appearance subsequently should not cause prejudice to the petitioner. A reference of judgment of this court in the case of UOI & Ors. vs. Jeevraj & Anr., reported in, 2008 (2) CDR 1630 (Raj.) has been given, It is further stated that transfer of the case should be with the notice to the parties as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Reena Sadh vs. Anjana Enterprises, reported in : (2008) 12 SCC 589.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for respondents, on the other hand, submits that transfer of the cases was in the knowledge of the petitioner as his Advocate appeared after transfer of the case. It was not on one occasion but on many occasions. If subsequently, he defaulted in putting appearance then being representative of the petitioner, it can be to the benefit of the petitioner. In view of the above, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rightly dismissed.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that initially claim cases were instituted before MACT, Gangapurcity but subsequently transferred to MACT, Hindaun. The Advocate engaged by the petitioner was appearing even after transfer to MACT, Hindaun but after putting appearance on few occasions, he did not appear and thereby claim was decided ex -parte. The default in putting appearance cannot be to the benefit of the parties. The Vakalatnama is executed with the authority to represent. One such authority is given, the default of the Advocate in putting appearance cannot be taken to the benefit of the party. The judgment in the case of Jeevraj (supra) was taking note of larger public interest of the Railways where claim was allowed due to negligence of the Advocate. The case in hand is not of the same nature herein. It is a case where three persons died and two were injured. In all total claim made in favour of claimant is only for a sum of Rs. 4, 64, 000/ -. So far as judgment in the case of is Reena Sadh (supra) concerned, the facts of that case are altogether different. In the instant case, transfer of the cases was in the knowledge of the representative of the petitioner who had put in appearance even after transfer. Thus facts of the case of Reena Sadh (supra) does not apply to the present case. Taking note of overall facts and circumstances, I do not find any error in the impugned order so as to cause interference while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.