Jharkhand High Court
United India Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Ashiruddin on 16 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
M.A. No. 429 of 2016
----
United India Insurance Co. Ltd., Rajhans Mansion, Dhanbad, through its
Divisional Manager, Tapas Kumar Saha ... Appellant
-versus-
1. Ashiruddin
2. Mariam Bibi
3. Manoj Kumar Singh
4. Ashok Kumar Singh
5. Mahabir Yadav ... Respondents
----
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANANDA SEN
THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING
----
For the Appellant: Mr. Ashutosh Anand, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Zaid Ahmad, Advocate
----
13/ 16.02.2022 M.A. No.429 of 2016
A photocopy of the news paper in which notices were published in
terms of Order V Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed along
with affidavit.
From the aforesaid notice, it is quite clear that the notice has been
published in the local newspaper, Prabhat Khabar, intimating respondents
Nos.3, 4 and 5 about the date of hearing of this case. None appears on behalf
of the aforesaid respondents.
Since the service of notice is valid, this Court is proceeding
exparte against the aforesaid respondents.
I.A. No. 7489 of 2016
This appeal has been filed on 20.08.2016. The impugned
judgment is dated 09.05.2013. Limitation expired on 07.08.2013. There is
delay of 1108 days, which is more than 3 years, in filing this appeal.
This interlocutory application has been filed to condone the delay
in filing this appeal. It is necessary to quote grounds, which have been taken in
the interlocutory application to condone the delay. Paragraphs 2, 3, 4 and 5 of
the interlocutory application, wherein grounds have been mentioned, read as
under: -
2. That the judgment was passed on 09.05.13.
Immediately thereafter opinion was taken in
the matter and the file was process and it was
decided to prefer an appeal.
3. That thereafter the file was handed to the
conducting counsel in the Hon'ble High Court
for needful. However, subsequently on
account of communication gap between the
appellant company and the conducting
advocate, it seems no steps was taken by the
conducting advocate.
4. That the appellant received a copy of the
Execution case no.3/13 on 27.06.16 whereafter
on enquiry, for the first time it was revealed
that no appeal has been filed in the matter and
even the file was not traceable.
5. That thereafter fresh certified copy was
obtained which was received on 20.07.16 and
the entire records was processed for filing
was appeal and the file was accordingly
handed over to another counsel whereafter
the appeal was drafted and filed without any
further delay.
From perusal of these four paragraphs, it cannot be said that
these grounds are sufficient for condoning the delay. Absolutely vague
statements have been made in this interlocutory application. Further from the
certified copy of the impugned judgment, I find that the certified copy of the
judgment was applied from the Tribunal only on 15.07.2016, i.e., after receipt
of notice of the execution case. This Court is not satisfied with the grounds so
mentioned in the interlocutory application, wherein prayer has been made to
condone the delay of 1108 days.
Accordingly, in absence of any plausible grounds, this
interlocutory application is dismissed.
M.A. No. 429 of 2016
Consequent upon dismissal of I.A. No. 7489 of 2016, this appeal
being barred by limitation, is, hereby dismissed.
The statutory amount deposited by the appellant at the time of
filing this appeal will be refunded to the Insurance Company.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Kumar/Cp-02
