Dismissed

Arjun Ram v. R S R T C and Ors.

Rajasthan HC22 Apr 2024CW/4627/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's order dismissing the petitioner's application to set aside an ex-parte decree. The Court upheld the Tribunal's finding that substituted service via publication in 'Dainik Navjyoti' was valid despite the newspaper's alleged lack of circulation in Nagaur, supported by a circulation certificate.

What the court decided

AI extract

Arjun Ram Vs R S R T C and Ors. — Motor Accident Claims | Rajasthan HC (2024)

¶1

[2024:RJ-JP:18533]

¶2

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶3

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4627/2008

¶4

Arjun Ram S/o Shri Ganga Ram, aged 41 years, R/o Dhani Khileriya Nada, P.S. Makrana, District Nagarur Rajasthan.

¶5

----Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Through General Manager, Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Jaipur.

¶8

The Chief Manager, Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation, Tonk Depot, Tonk Rajasthan.

¶9

...Respondents/Claimants

¶10

The Judge, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal Additional District Judge Fast Track No.2,

¶11

----Respondent

¶12

For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Bhawna Choudhary for Mr. Praveen Balwada For Respondent(s) : Mr. Pramod Singh for Ms. Shruti Dixit

¶13

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL Judgment / Order

¶14

22/04/2024

¶15

This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is preferred against the order dated 05.08.2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.2, (Motor Accident Claims Tribunal), Tonk (for brevity, “learned Tribunal”) whereby, an application filed by the petitioner/judgment debtor (for brevity, “petitioner”) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed.

¶16

The relevant facts in brief are that in a claim petition filed by the respondents No.1 and 2/claimants (for brevity, “claimants”)

[2024:RJ-JP:18533]

[CW-4627/2008]

(2 of 3)

against the petitioner, an ex-parte decree dated 21.04.2005 came to be passed against him. On the receipt of notice of execution petition filed by the claimants, the petitioner appeared and filed an application as aforesaid which has been dismissed by the learned Tribunal vide order impugned dated 05.08.2006.

¶21

Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since service of notice upon him was presumed on the basis of its publication in the daily newspaper “Dainik Navjyoti” which did not have circulation in the District Nagaur, the learned Tribunal erred in dismissing his application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC. She, therefore, prays that the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 05.08.2006 be quashed and set aside and the application filed by him under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC be allowed.

¶22

Per contra, learned counsel for the claimants supported the findings recorded by the learned Tribunal.

¶23

Heard. Considered.

¶24

While dismissing the application, the learned Tribunal has held that on the receipt of summon/registered notice issued to the petitioner of the claim petition back with an endorsement that he did not reside at the address given therein, he was served through “substituted service”, i.e., publication in the daily newspaper “Dainik Navjyoti”. Contention of the petitioner that the “Dainik Nayjyoti” has no circulation in the District Nagaur was rejected on the basis of the letter dated 01.08.2006 issued by the Jaipur Office of the daily newspaper “Dainik Navjyoti” certifying its circulation in the District Nagaur. The learned Tribunal further held

¶25

(3 of 3) [CW-4627/2008]

¶26

[2024:RJ-JP:18533]

¶27

that since, the petitioner was served upon with the notice of execution petition at the same address which was given in the claim petition, it could not be believed that he was unaware of the pendency of the claim petition. In view of the aforesaid findings, this Court finds no substance in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶28

Resultantly, this Court finds no perversity or manifest error of law/facts in the order impugned dated 05.08.2006 warranting interference under its limited supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

¶29

In view thereof, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of merit.

¶30

Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly.

¶31

(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J

¶32

DIKSHA /79

Arjun Ram v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Arjun Ram v. R S R T C and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shankar Lal Vs State Panchayati Raj Dep Ors.

R.P.Saxena Vs State

R.P.Saxena Vs State

Sattewalon Ki Dharmashala Vs Parmanand Advocate and Anr.

Nemi Chand Jain Vs the Honble Central Infor and Ors.

Pappu Alias Pyare Lal Vs District Judge and Ors.