Honble BALIA, J.–This appeal is directed against the order dated 4.5.2000 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in Smt. Vimla Devi and Anr. vs. Rajendra Kumar and Ors. (1), 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 Accident 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. the claimants-appellants who are the legal representatives of deceased Jankinath @ 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, then is not maintainable. the fresh claim petition was dismissed by invoking the provisions of O.VII, Rule 11 CPC.

(3). Order VII, Rule 11(d) CPC 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 vs. D.P. Vijayvargiya (2), held that the provisions of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1994 will apply retrospectively. It was further held:-

``However, in my considered opinion, the earlier order of dismissing absence of the claimants and their counsel stands. Therefore, second claim petition filed under the new Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Act, 1994 is not maintainable.

(4). Hence this special appeal by the claimants-appellants.

(5). Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of the opinion that the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge both have not noticed that under Rule 20 of the Rajasthan Motor Accident Claims Tribunals Rules, 1964, which also continues to be operative under the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, the provisions of Order IX CPC have been made applicable to the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunals. The provisions of Order VII CPC have not been made applicable to such proceedings.

(6). Order IX, Rule 4 CPC which governs the proceedings after the suit or claim has been dismissed for default reads as under:-

``Order IX, Rule 4 CPC. Plaintiff may bring fresh suit or Court may restore suit to file.- Where a suit is dismissed under Rule 2 or Rule 3, the plaintiff may (subject to the law of limitation) bring a fresh suit, or he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside, and if he satisfies the Court that there was sufficient cause for (such failure as is referred to in Rule 2), or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

(7). A perusal of the aforesaid provision leaves no room for doubt that it gives two options to the litigants whose suit or claim has been dismissed for non-prosecution or for default. The first option is that the plaintiff or the claimant may bring a fresh suit or claim subject to law of limitation applicable to such suit or claim. The second option is that he may apply for an order to set the dismissal aside and if he satisfies the Court, that there was sufficient cause for such failure as is referred to in Rule 2 or for his non-appearance, as the case may be, the Court shall make an order setting aside the dismissal and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit or the claim. So far as filing of fresh suit or claim petition is concerned, it is subject to the law of limi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document