Union Of India vs Ram Pyari Bai
2022 Latest Caselaw 14557 MP

                                                                         1
                                                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                                  AT JABALPUR
                                                                       BEFORE
                                                         HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK AGARWAL
                                                             ON THE 10th OF NOVEMBER, 2022

                                                            MISC. APPEAL No. 2679 of 2012

                                                BETWEEN:-
                                                UNION OF INDIA THROUGH :GENERAL
                                                MANAGER, CENTRAL RAILWAY JABALPUR
                                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                     .....APPELLANT
                                                (NONE PRESENT)

                                                AND
                                        1.      RAM PYARI BAI W/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN
                                                DAS, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                                                VILLAGE DIGAURI, TEHSIL PATAN, DISTT.
                                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        2.      SMT. SUNITA BAI W/O LATE SHRI SHANKAR
                                                LAL, AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, DAUGHTER OF
                                                LATE SHRI BHAGWAN DAS, RESIDENT OF
                                                VILLAGE DIGAURI, TEHSIL PATAN, DISTT.
                                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        3.      KU. GANESHI BAI D/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN
                                                D AS , AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                                                VILLAGE DIGAURI, TEHSIL PATAN, DISTT.
                                                JABALPUR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                        4.      KU. PAN BAI D/O LATE SHRI BHAGWAN DAS,
                                                AGED, AGED ABOUT 18 YEARS, RESIDENT OF
                                                VILLAGE DIGAURI, TESHIL PATAN, DISTT.
                                                JABALPUR, M.P. (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                                                (BY SHRI DEVENDRA SINGH THAKUR - ADVOCATE)

                                              This appeal coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the

Signature Not Verified
  SAN
                                        following:
                                                                          ORDER

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.11.10 20:07:34 IST This Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 43 Rule 1(r) of Civil Procedure

Code, 1908, is filed by the appellant being aggrieved of order dated 20.07.2012, passed by learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation/Labour Court, Jabalpur, in Case No.42/2011/Fatal (Misc.), rejecting an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, on the ground that in the said case one Shri Chandrakant Mishra, Advocate, had appeared for the Union of India on 20.01.2009. After marking his presence in the case, he remained absent on 04.02.2009 and thereafter, when ex-parte proceedings were drawn, case was decided finally on 19.10.2010.

2. In para 6, it is mentioned that though appellant/applicant Union of India mentioned in his application that they discovered the fact of ex-parte judgment

on 20.04.2011, but it is also true that they could not explain that why their counsel did not appear from 04.02.2009 to 19.10.2010. No details were brought on record to show that any disciplinary action was taken against the counsel who failed to appear. Even there was no application for seeking condonation of delay and under such facts and circumstances, learned Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation rejected the application seeking restoration.

3. When facts of the case are appreciated, then impugned order for the conduct of the party and the counsel does not call for any interference.

4. Accordingly, appeal fails and is dismissed.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE Later on :

Signature Not Verified SAN

Shri Harshwardhan Singh Rajput, Advocate appeared and prays for Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.11.10 20:07:34 IST

marking his presence on behalf of appellant-Union of India.

On his request, his presence is marked.

(VIVEK AGARWAL) JUDGE A.Praj.

Signature Not Verified SAN

Digitally signed by ASHWANI PRAJAPATI Date: 2022.11.10 20:07:34 IST