Allahabad High Court
Rajesh Kumar Soni vs District Judge Balrampur And Ors. on 13 January, 2010
Author: Devendra Kumar Arora
Bench: Devendra Kumar Arora
Court No. - 9 Case :- MISC. SINGLE No. - 131 of 2010 Petitioner :- Rajesh Kumar Soni Respondent :- District Judge Balrampur And Ors. Petitioner Counsel :- Pankaj Pathak Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C. Hon'ble Devendra Kumar Arora,J.
By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing that part of the order dated 05.1.2010, passed by the District Judge, Balrampur by which the application 55-Ga and 57 Ga of the petitioner has been rejected.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner met with an accident on 26.2.2005 and remained in coma about 26 days and remained hospitalised for about three months. After accident, the petitioner also lost his memory and he is still under treatment. The petitioner filed M.A.C.P. No. 69 of 2007 and on 28.5.2009 his statement was recorded. Due to loss of memory, he failed to collect all the papers related to the treatment in time. The evidence was closed by the court below on 03.12.2009 although witness Chandra Prakash Misra was not present before the court. The petitioner on 05.01.2010 moved two applications no. 53Ga and 55GA for setting aside the order dated 04.01.2010 and providing opportunity for evidence as well as for permission to file some documentary evidence. The application no. 53Ga was allowed at the cost of Rs. 300/- but application 55Ga was rejected saying that the petitioner had not filed any document with the Application 55Ga ignoring the fact that the said application was filed for permission to file documents.
Further submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the same day petitioner filed another application 57Ga for the permission to file the documents which too was rejected by the court below.
Grievance of the petitioner is that in absence of documents relating to his treatment, the court below will not be in a position to proceed with the quantum of compensation and, as such, it is necessary that the petitioner may be provided opportunity to file documents in support of his claim.
Issue notice to the opposite parties no. 2 to 4 returnable at an early date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is also permitted to serve opposite parties no. 2 to 4 outside the court for which office shall issue Dasti summons to the petitioner within one week.
List in the last week of February, 2010. In the meantime, the proceedings may go on but no final judgment would be passed by the opposite party no. 1.
Order Date :- 13.1.2010 ashok