Court dismissed the cross-objection barred by inordinate delay, holding it just and improper to condone the 435-day delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act.
Application under Section 5 of Limitation Act dismissed; cross-objection dismissed for delay.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Cross Objection Civil No. 89 / 2012
Murlidhar And Ors
----Petitioner
Versus
Laxminarayan And Ors
----Respondent
Connected With
S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1004 / 2011 Murlidhar And Ors ----Appellant Versus Laxminarayan And Ors ----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr.V.P.Mathur (cross objector)
For Respondent(s) : Mr.Shyam Prajapat
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA
Judgment / Order
06/04/2017
Cross objection/s has/have been filed after an inordinate delay of 435 days. An application under Sec.5 of Limitation Act has also been filed for condoning the delay.
Looking to the facts & circumstances of the case, I do not think it just and proper to condone the delay. Accordingly, the application filed under Sec.5 of Limitation Act is dismissed. The cross-objection stand also dismissed on the ground of delay.
This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and award under appeal.
(2 of 5)
[XOBJC-89/2012]
Brief facts of the case are that an accident occurred in the present case and with regard to an accident, a claim petition was filed on behalf of the claimant/s claiming compensation as mentioned therein. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Reply to the claim petition was filed and the learned Tribunal framed the issues. After hearing all the parties, the learned Tribunal passed the aforesaid impugned judgment & award under appeal.
Against the impugned judgment and award under appeal, the appellant preferred the instant appeal for the relief as prayed for in it.
Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the learned Tribunal has failed to appreciate each and every aspect of the matter as also the evidence available on record. The award passed by the learned Tribunal is illegal, without jurisdiction and contrary to the facts of the case. Hence impugned award deserves to be modified/enhanced.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of appellant and requested for maintaining/setting aside of award.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and award under
(3 of 5)
XOBJC-89/2012]
appeal. I am in agreement with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal, which are reproduced as under:-
rudh la[;k 2
buds vuqlkj izkFkhZx.k dks 70]14]000@& :i, {kfriwfrZ jkf’k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh lkfcr gksuk gSA ,-MCY;w&1 eqjyh/kj dh lk{; ls vFkok Dyse vkosny ds }kjk erd egsUnz dks 'kknh’kqnk gksuk ugha crk;k x;k gS] vr% izfrdj dh x.kuk gsrq egsUnz dh vk;q egRoiw.kZ u gksdj izkFkhZx.k dh vk;q egRoiw.kZ lkfcr gksrh gS] D;ksafd izkFkhZx.k gh ,dek= mlds vc ckfj’k cps gSA izkFkhZx.k dh mez ds vk/kkj ij eksVj okgu vf/kfu;e dh f}rh; vuqlwph ds vuqlkj 15 ds xq.kd dk iz;ksx fd;k tkuk crk;k x;k gSA ,-Mcyw&1 eqjyh/kj us vius iq= egsUnz }kjk fj;k E;wftd lsUVj ds uke ls nqdku djrs gq, 6]000@& :i;s ekfld vk; vftZr dj ysus ds dFku fd, gSA bl lEcU/k esa ,-MCY;w-&1 eqjyh/kj us nqdku ij ,UVªh dh tkus okyh fglkc dh dkWih izn'kZ 11 izLrqr dh gS] ysfdu blds voyksdu ls ;g tkfgj ugha gksrk gS fd ;g fj;k E;wftd uked nqdku ij j[kh tkus okyh Mk;jh ;k dkWih gksA erd us fj;k E;wftd ds uke ls nqdku j[kh gks] bl lEcU/k esa Hkh dksbZ nLrkosth lk{; i=koyh ij izLrqr ugha gqvk gSA izfrijh{k.k ds nkSjku ,-MCY;w-&1 eqjyh/kj us bl ckr ls vufHkKrk izdV dh gS fd nqdku dk ekfyd dkSu FkkA fQj Hkh e`rd egsUnz 22 o"khZ; LoLFk O;fDr gksus ds dkj.k 3]000@&:i;s ekfld vk; vftZr dj ysus ij fdlh Hkh izdkj vfo'okl ugha fd;k tk ldrkA ftldh ekfld vk; 3]000@&:i;s Lohdkj fd;k tkuk gh U;k;laxr izrhr gksrk gSA bl vk; dk 1@3 Hkkx Lo;a ij [kpZ dj ysus ds i'pkr~
(4 of 5)
[XOBJC-89/2012]
2]000@&:i;s ekfld rFkk 24]000@&:i;s okf"kZd vkfJrrk jkf'k izkIr gksrh gS] ftlesa izkFkhZx.k dh vk;q ds vk/kkj ij 15 ds xq.kd dk iz;ksx djus ij 24000X15=3]60]000@&:i;s og jkf'k izkIr gksrh gS] ftldk uqdlku izkFkhZx.k dks egsUnz ds vlkef;d fu/ku ls mBkuk iM+sxk] ftldh {kfriwfrZ os nks"kh O;fDr;ksa ls djokus ds vf/kdkjh gSA izkFkhZx.k us egsUnz ds vlkef;d fu/ku ls iq= dk Lusg [kks;k gS blfy, izR;sd izkFkhZx.k dks bl en esa 10]000@&:i;s {kfriwfrZ Lo:i fnyk;k tkuk U;k;laxr izhr gksrk gSA ekeys ds rF;ksa ,oa ifjfLFkfr;ksa dks n`f"Vxr j[krs gq, vfUre LkaLdkj ij gq, O;; ds en esa 5]000@&:i;s {kfriwfrZ Lo:i fnyk;k tkuk mfpr izrhr gksrk gSA izkFkhZx.k vU; fdlh en esa dksbZ {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus ds vf/kdkjh lkfcr ugha gksrs] mUgsa fuEu izdkj {kfriwfrZ jkf'k izkIr djus dk vf/kdkjh Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS %&
¼1½ vk; dh gkfu ds en esa 3]60]000@& ¼2½ izkFkhZ la[;k 1 o 2 izR;sd dks iq= Lusg ls oafpr gks tkus ds fy, 10]000@&:i;s dqy 20]000 ¼3½ vfUre laLdkj ij fd, x, O;; ds fy, 5]000@&
Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings arrived at by learned Tribunal as quoted herein above, the learned Tribunal is found to have dealt with each and every aspect of the matter, and has rightly passed the impugned judgment and award. I am in unison with the findings arrived at by the learned Tribunal. Hence, I do not
(5 of 5)
[XOBJC-89/2012]
think it just and proper to interfere with the impugned award under appeal passed by the Tribunal, and thus the appeal having no force, is hereby dismissed after confirming the judgment and award under appeal passed by the learned Tribunal.
(MAHESH CHANDRA SHARMA) J.
sandeep/-26-27
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the delay in filing the cross-objection warranting condonation under Section 5 of Limitation Act?
Murlidhar And Ors
Laxminarayan And Ors
Mahesh Chandra Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
