Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for parties and perused the materials on record. The question for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the absence of petitioner and his Counsel on 4.4.1989 before the Claims Tribunal was justified and then was sufficient cause for the same on which basis the absence may be condoned and the order may be recalled. It is noticeable from the order sheet dated 4.4.1989 that an application was filed on behalf of petitioner by his Counsel stating therein that petitioner did not come to Court to attend the case and hence the case could not be prepared for arguments and it was not possible to argue the case on that date. It was also mentioned in the application that the papers relating to insurance are also not available, which petitioner was asked to produce. The application is Annexure 1 to the writ petition. However, in the affidavit filed by father of petitioner, which has been filed as Annexure 3 to the writ petition, altogether different facts have been given. In para 2 of the aforesaid affidavit, it has been stated that he had come to do necessary pairavi on behalf of petitioner and he contacted his Counsel Sri Sheo Nath Singh but he was too busy, hence he asked to move an application for adjournment and after giving an application he went for taking his lunch. In para 3, it has been further submitted that after giving application he became carefree but when he came at 3.15 p.m. along with his Counsel and enquired about his case, then it was found that the application has been dismissed in default. In the contents of the application filed on 4.4.1989 and the affidavit are read together, it leaves an impression that the absence was with the only purpose to get adjournment somehow. It cannot be ignored that the claim petition was pending since 19.10.1984 and about five years had already elapsed but even written statement was not filed by the petitioner in spite of several opportunities given. If the explanation given by petitioner is considered in the facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be believed. Respondent No. 5 has considered the application and the affidavit filed by petitioner at length and has rejected the same for very cogent reasons. It is difficult to believe that learned Counsel for petitioner could have been under impression that the application for adjournment shall be automatically allowed even without pressing the same. From the affidavit filed by father of the petitioner, it appears that the application was moved only for the purpose of getting the case adjourned somehow, though petitioner's father was present there to look after the case. No where it has been stated that he was not instructed for doing necessary pairavi. Further, there was no explanation on the part of petitioner, why application was not filed on the same day for restoration of the application or on the next day. The petitioner filed it on 11 .4. 1989 though the affidavit and application were already prepared on 6.4.1989. In my opinion, the view taken by the Claims Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the case is perfectly justified. The submission of learned Counsel for the respondents that in the absence of sufficient cause the restoration cannot be allowed is correct. The cases relied on by him are squarely applicable in the present case.