Unknown vs Additional District Judge
2024 Latest Caselaw 8735 AP

Andhra Pradesh High Court - Amravati

Unknown vs Additional District Judge on 20 September, 2024

                  HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
 MAIN CASE No: MACMA.No.351 of 2024                                                24

                          PROCEEDING SHEET

Sl.                                                                            OFFICE
        Date                               ORDER
No.                                                                             NOTE

03    20.09.2024 BSB, J

                                       I.A.No.1 of 2024
                      This application is filed to condone the delay of
                311 days in filing the M.A.C.M.A. against decree and
                judgment dated 23.02.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.511 of
                2015 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II
                Additional District Judge, Vijayawada.
                      The learned counsel for the 1st respondent

reported no counter.

The 3rd respondent did not turn up, in spite of service of notice.

Further notice to the 2nd respondent is dispensed with on 06.09.2024.

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. For the reasons sated in the affidavit, the petition is allowed.

This application is filed to grant stay of operation of decree and judgment dated 23.02.2023 in M.V.O.P.No.511 of 2015 on the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-II Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, pending disposal of the main M.A.C.M.A. The learned counsel for the petitioner/appellant

Dt.20.09.2024 stated that the entire decretal amount was deposited before the Tribunal for Rs.23,27,398/-, which is evident by filing photostat copy of the memo dated 27.03.2024 along with the appeal. Hence, the learned counsel for the petitioner sought the stay of operation of decree and judgment under appeal, including withdrawal of the amount deposited.

The learned counsel for the respondent/claimant requested to permit the 1st respondent to withdraw the amount stating that the petitioner has already undergone four surgeries and requires future treatment/surgery also.

The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that there is no proof of future requirement of surgery.

Considering the contentions on both sides, stay as prayed for is granted while permitting the 1st respondent/claimant to withdraw 50% of the amount deposited as per the decree without furnishing any security, however subject to the result of the appeal.

Admit Appeal.

Call for lower Court record.

Post after two (02) months.

__________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI,J NSM