HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
D.S. SINHA, J.
Rajesh Kumar Alias Rajoo - Appellant
Versus
Bal Kishan Agnihotri - Respondent
Civil Misc. Application No. of 1992 in First Appeal From Order No. 454 of 1991
Decided on : Apr 22, 1992
MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL - STAY OF EXECUTION - SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR MAKING DEPOSIT - CONDITIONS NOT COMPLIED WITH - APPLICATION FOR MODIFICATION OF INTERIM ORDER - DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant-applicants challenged the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal before the court by means of an appeal. The court admitted the appeal and stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 28th February 1991, provided the appellant-applicants deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by 25th of July 1991. The appellant-applicants did not comply with the condition and the interim order stood vacated automatically. The appellant-applicants then filed an application for stay of the operation of the citation dated 25th October 1991, which was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court recalled the order and passed an interim order staying the sale of the appellant-applicants' property till 10th February 1992, provided they made the deposit of the amount under demand within one month from the date of the order. The appellant-applicants again failed to comply with the condition and the interim order again stood vacated automatically. The appellant-applicants then filed an application for modification of the interim order dated 7th January 1992, which was allowed by the court and the time for depositing the amount was extended by another two months. The appellant-applicants did not comply with the condition and the interim order stood vacated automatically.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the appellant-applicants had been playing chicanery and succeeding in getting the extension orders even after violating the stipulation of the previous orders of the court with impunity. The court also held that the appellant-applicants had forfeited any claim, whatsoever, for modification of the interim orders in the manner prayed for and that it would be travesty of justice to grant any further indulgence to the appellant-applicants who had repeatedly failed to comply with the orders of the court.
Issues: Whether the appellant-applicants were entitled to an extension of time for making the deposit as directed by the court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellant-applicants were not entitled to an extension of time for making the deposit as directed by the court because they had repeatedly failed to comply with the orders of the court and had forfeited any claim, whatsoever, for modification of the interim orders in the manner prayed for.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the application for modification of the interim order dated 7th January 1992 and 14th February 1992 and grant of extension of time prayed for.
D.S. Sinha
1. Heard Sri B. P. Singh, learned counsel representing the appellant-applicants and Sri P. R. Pal, learned counsel representing the claimant-respondent.
2. By means of this application dated 16th April, 1991, under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, hereinafter called the 'Code', the applicants pray for modification of the orders dated 7th January, 1992 and 14th February, 1992 passed by this court and grant of extension of time for making certain deposit directed by this court.
In claim petition no. 111 of 1988, decided by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Dehat by means of its order and judgment dated 28th February, 1991, impugned in the Appeal, the appellant-applicants figured as opposite parties. The judgment and order dated 28th February, 1991 directs the appellant-applicants to pay to the claimant-respondent an amount of Rs 25,000/- along with interest at the rate of 10 percent per annum. The appellant-applicants have challenged the order of the Tribunal before this court by means of the First Appeal from Order No. 454 of 1991. The appeal, which was filed by the appellants through Sri. A. K. Sachan, Advocate, was admitted by this court on 17th May, 1991. While admitting the appeal, this court stayed the operation of the impugned judgment and order dated 28th February, 1991 provided the appellant-applicants deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by 25th of July, 1991. The court also clarified that in case the amount was not deposited as stipulated by the order, the interim order would stand vacated automatically. This order was passed in presence of Sri P. R. Pal, Advocate, who had filed caveat on behalf of the claimant-respondent the claimant- respondent was granted three weeks' time for filing counter affidavit and the appellant-applicants were granted a week thereafter for filing rejoinder affidavit. The application for interim order was directed to be listed thereafter for further orders.
3. Indisputably, the appellant-applicants did not comply with the condition imposed by the order dated 17th May, 1991 with regard to the deposit of Rs. 20,000/- by 25th of July, 1991. Thus the interim order dated 17th May, 1991 stood vacated automatically as stipulated by the order itself.
4. It appears that on account of lapse of the interim order, the impugned award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was put into execution and a citation dated 25th October, 1991 was issued to the appellant-applicants for realisation of the amount payable by them. This led the appellant- applicants to rush to this court and pray by means of the application dated 29th October. 1991 for stay of the operation of the citation dated 25th October, 1991, although the citation was not the subject matter of the appeal it will be pertinent to notice that by this time the appellant- applicants had changed their counsel and had chosen to move this application by another counsel, namely, Sri K. K. Tripathi. IT is also relevant to notice that copy of this application was mot served on Sri P. R. Pal, who was continuing to represent the claimant-respondent. Instead, the copy of the application was sent to Sri Pal by registered post. Sri Pal states that he is not sure about the receipt of the aforesaid copy sent to him through registered post. The application dated 29th October, 1991 come up for consideration before the court on 2nd January, 1992 but it was dismissed for want of prosecution. However, on 7th January, 1992, the court recalled the order dated 2nd January, 1992 and, while recalling the order dated 2nd January, 1992, passed the following interim order : "Honourable B. Dikshit, J. The order dated 2-1-1992 is recalled. The sale of the property of petitioner in pursuance of the recovery proceedings shall remain stayed till 10th February, 1992 provided the appellant makes the deposit of amount demanded under citation within one month from today. In case of default this order shall s
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.