Writ petition challenging dismissal of Section 151 CPC application filed by petitioner during execution of Motor Accident Claims Tribunal award. Petitioner failed to file condonation of delay application within granted period, leading to dismissal.
Writ petition disposed of and all pending applications disposed of.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
WP227 No. 90 of 2018
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
For the Petitioner : Mr. Shrawan Agrawal, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. Abhijeet Mishra, Advocate
_____________________________________________________________
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput,
Order on Board
26.06.2023
2
before the learned Tribunal in which the petitioner was proceed exparte and an ex-parte award was passed against the petitioner. He further submits that the said award was challenged by the petitioner under Order 8 Rule 13 of CPC before the learned Tribunal, which also stood dismissed. Being aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein fled a Miscellaneous Appeal No.30/2008 ultimately vide order dated 18.10.2016 the said appeal was allowed and the impugned order was set aside and petitioner was directed to appear before the Court below on 15.11.2016 and fle an application for condonation of delay within 10 days from 18.10.2016 and the Court below would decide the application under Order 8 Rule 13 of CPC as early as possible preferably within 3 months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. It is further submitted that this order was never communicated to the petitioner and therefore, within stipulated time the same could not be apprised to the learned tribunal and no such application was fled. Thereafter during course of execution proceedings the petitioner has fled an application under section 151 of CPC with prayer that no further action may be taken against the defendants and further proceeding may be initiated in accordance with order passed by Hon’ble High Court. He admits that order passed by Hon’ble Court could not be communicated within prescribed time, however, in the interest of justice the trial Court ought to have extended the period and accept the application, therefore, learned Court below has committed illegality and irregularity by not considering the application of the petitioner. He submits that despite of the order passed by this Court, the petitioner is left with no remedy.
3
an application for condonation of delay was granted and also given a fxed time limit that within a period of 10 days they should have fled an application for condonation of delay, admittedly which has not been done by the petitioner. He further submits that for the execution proceedings by virtue of an application under Section 151 of CPC the time limit cannot be extended, therefore, there is no jurisdictional illegality committed by the learned executing Court. He submits that originally the claim application was fled when the frst award was passed in the year 2016 and till date the petitioner are not able to enjoy the fruits of the award.
Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge
parul
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned executing court committed illegality or irregularity in dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 151 of CPC for condonation of delay.
Whether the time limit granted by the High Court for filing the application for condonation of delay can be extended during execution proceedings.
Whether the petitioner is left without any remedy despite the impugned order.
Vijay Kedia
Smt. Chandrika Sahu
Kumari Ravina
Kumari Kiran
Kanta Kumar
Sachin Singh Rajput
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
