Allowed

Manoj Pawle v. Vinod Gupta

Chhattisgarh HC3 Jan 2022WP227/721/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a petition under Article 226, the High Court directed the first Additional District Judge to decide a miscellaneous application within four months. The Court also conditioned a stay on the execution of an ex parte award on the petitioner depositing a sum with the Tribunal.

What did the court decide?

Direction to decide Misc. Civil Case No.26/2019 within 4 months; stay on execution upon deposit of Rs. 3 lacs.

Manoj Pawle Vs Vinod Gupta — Motor Accident Claims | Chhattisgarh HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR W.P (227) No.721 of 2021

¶4

Manoj Pawle S/o Lohar Sai Pawle Aged About 30 Years Forest Guard, Van Parishad Mainpath, Village- Kamleshwarpur, Post- Kamleshwarpur, TahsilSitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vinod Gupta S/o Karmu Prasad Gupta Aged About 40 Years Caste- Gupta, Occupation- Business And Agriculturist, R/o Village- Buturma, Police Station And Tahsil- Sitapur, District- Surguja, Chhattisgarh ----Respondent

¶7

For Petitioner: Shri Rahul Agrawal, Advocate.

¶8

Single Bench:Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari J Order On Board

¶9

03.01.2022

¶10

This Petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India seeking direction to decide the case i.e. Misc. Civil Case No.26/2019 pending before the 1^st Additional District Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja within a stipulated time.

¶11

Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent-Non Applicant had filed a claim Petition before the Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur bearing No.54/2014 in which, the Petitioner was proceeded ex parte. The Petitioner was not aware of the institution of claim case and the Tribunal has passed an ex parte award on 07.12.2017. Thereafter, when the Petitioner came to know about the award dated 07.12.2017, he immediately filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on 06.09.2019. In the said case, on 25.09.2021, the Respondent has entered his appearance and the matter was fixed for final argument.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that in order to execute the award dated 07.12.2017, the Respondent has filed an execution case, therefore, the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is required to be decided expeditiously and if the said award is executed, then the very object of filing the application under Order

¶13

¶14

9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte order would be frustrated. Therefore, the Petitioner has filed this Petition for issuance of a direction to decide the Misc. Civil Case No.26/2019 within a stipulated time.

¶15

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner and perused the papers annexed with the Petition.

¶16

As the Petitioner has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and the execution case is also pending before the 1^st Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Ambikapur, considering the object of the Motor Vehicles Act which is to compensate the victim of the motor vehicle accidents and further considering the facts and circumstances, this Court finds it appropriate to issue a direction for deciding the said Misc. Civil Case.

¶17

Accordingly, the Tribunal is directed to decide the Misc. Civil Case No.26/2019 as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 4 months from today in accordance with law.

¶18

Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it is directed that if the Petitioner deposits a sum of Rs.3 lacs in the Claims Tribunal within a period of 45 days from the date of passing of this order, then the effect and operation of the execution of M.A.C.C Exe. No.46/2018 arising out of the award dated 07.12.2017 in M.A.C.T Case No.54/2014 shall remain stayed till the adjudication of the lis. It is further directed that the amount so deposited by the Petitioner is entitled to be withdrawn by the Respondent/Non-Applicant upon furnishing adequate security and if necessary, upon the order of the Tribunal, the Respondent shall return the said amount along with interest @ 6% per annum to the Petitioner.

¶19

In view of the above terms, the instant Petition is allowed.

¶20

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE

¶21

Priya

Manoj Pawle v. Vinod Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Pawle v. Vinod Gupta

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bholu Oraon Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Pappu Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sudhir Tirkey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Priti Sinha Vs Mithilesh Sinha

Dr. Krishna Kumar Kawre Vs C.G. Board of Secondary Education

Smt. Krishna Mallika Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh