Asherfi Lal And Others vs Hoshiyar Singh And Others
2017 Latest Caselaw 6873 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 

?Court No. - 37
 

 
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 30 of 2004
 

 
Appellant :- Asherfi Lal And Others
 
Respondent :- Hoshiyar Singh And Others
 
Counsel for Appellant :- Ram Singh
 

 
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.

Hon'ble Saral Srivastava,J.

Today, when the matter was taken up it has been pointed that the report dated 07.09.2016 on the delay condonation application states that notices have not been received back after service including the respondent no. 2-Insurance Company. No counsel has been nominated by the Company to attend this case. Notice will be deemed to be sufficient.

In view of the report of the office, however, in order to ensure compliance this Court has been issuing directions to the counsel who are nominated on behalf of the Insurance Company to receive notices yet no response is being shown.

Learned counsel for the appellant shall take steps to serve the respondent no. 2 personally outside Court. The respondent no. 2 Insurance Company is put to notice in terms of Rule 207 of the Uttar Pradesh Motor Vehicles Rules 1998, to show cause that if they are under a statutory duty to nominate counsel before the Tribunal, then why such counsel are not being nominated in the High Court to receive notices in order to smoothen the functioning of service of notice which unnecessarily consumes time of this Court and also expense on the part of the litigating parties.

The learned counsel for the appellant shall serve this notice on the respondent no. 2 who shall also give an explanation, as to why in spite of service of notice as reported by the office no counsel has been nominated till date or else this Court may proceed to impose heavy costs on the Insurance Company.

List in the next cause list.

Order Date :- 14.11.2017

Ishan