Back
2022 Supreme(MP) 1323
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Vivek Agarwal, J.
Anita Choudhary & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Pawan Singh Kushwaha & Ors. – Respondents
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 5815 of 2022
Decided On : 06-12-2022
Neeraj Ashar, Advocate
Accurate record-keeping and processing of court documents are crucial for ensuring fair and just proceedings.
Headnote:
Registry Error - Caveat Application - The court addressed a mistake made by the Registry in understanding and processing a caveat application, highlighting the importance of accurate record-keeping and the potential consequences of errors in court proceedings.
Fact of the Case:
The court addressed a mistake made by the Registry in understanding and processing a caveat application.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Registry had committed a grave error in not understanding the meaning and import of the caveat application and showing the present set of appellants as caveator in the appeal filed by the claimant(s).
Issues: The issue was the mistake made by the Registry in processing the caveat application.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of accurate record-keeping and the potential consequences of errors in court proceedings.
Final Decision: The court ordered an inquiry into the mistake made by the Registry and the punishment of the delinquent responsible for the error.
JUDGMENT
Vivek Agarwal, J. - Issue notice on I.A.No.14898/2022, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing of this appeal, to the respondents on payment of process fee within seven days by registered A/D post. Notice be made returnable within four weeks.
2. Meanwhile, record of the Claims Tribunal be also called for.
3. Shri Neeraj Ashar submits that the Registry has by mistake shown his name as a counsel for the respondents also.
4. Let the aforesaid mistake be corrected by the Registry.
5. Shri Neeraj Ashar again submits that he had filed a caveat apprehending that the Insurance Company may also file an appeal against the impugned award but the said caveat is attached by the Registry alongwith Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the claimant(s) and has shown the name of the appellants' counsel in the array of the respondents showing them to be caveator.
6. A perusal of the caveat application reveals that the caveat was filed apprehending appeal in the hands of the caveatee, namely, Iffco Tokio General Insurance Company Limited. Thus, it is evident on the face of record that the Registry has committed an error in not understanding the meaning and import of the caveat application and showing the present set of appellants as caveator in the appeal filed by the claimant(s).
7. This is a grave error on the part of the Registry.
8. Let the aforesaid aspect be enquired into and the delinquent be punished suitably.
