Rameshwar Son Of Goru vs Mathri Bai Wife Of Madiyalal
2021 Latest Caselaw 3945 Raj/2

      HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                  BENCH AT JAIPUR

               S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15030/2019

Rameshwar Son Of Goru, Aged About 50 Years,                          Resident Of
Uncha Ka Jhopda, Raghunathpura, Thana- Hindoli, District-
Bundi.
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.       Mathri Bai Wife Of Madiyalal, Resident Of Vijaygarh,
         Thana- Basoli, District- Bundi (Raj.).
2.       Mahaveer Son Of Madiyalal,                   Resident Of Vijaygarh,
         Thana- Basoli, District- Bundi (Raj.).
3.       Shaitan Son Of Madiyalal, Aged About 15 Years, Resident
         Of Vijaygarh, Thana- Basoli, District- Bundi (Raj.). (Minor
         Therefore Through His Natural Mother Mathri Bai).
4.       Narsinghlal Son Of Madiyalal, Aged About 8 Years,
         Resident Of Vijaygarh, Thana- Basoli, District- Bundi
         (Raj.). (Minor Therefore Through His Natural Mother
         Mathri Bai).
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sunil Kumar Singodiya For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

Order

24/08/2021

The petitioner, by way of this writ petition, assails the order

dated 08.07.2019 whereby the application moved under Order 9

Rule 13 of CPC was rejected by the learned Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal No.1 Bundi.

Learned counsel submits that the ex-party proceedings were

initiated against the petitioner. The petitioner did not come to

know about the ex-parte proceedings.

(2 of 2) [CW-15030/2019]

However, this Court finds that in the impugned order dated

08.07.2019 learned Judge, MACT has observed that the petitioner

had represented through his counsel and also sought time to file

reply, which was granted to him with a cost of Rs.100/- whereafter

almost two years thereof on 19.02.2013 the petitioner as well as

his lawyer stopped appearing and ex-party proceedings were

initiated and the judgment was rendered on 16.06.2015. Learned

counsel for the petitioner has not been able to explain the absence

of the petitioner after having presented himself before the Court.

In view thereof, no case for interference is made out. The

order passed by the learned MACT rejecting the application

relating under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which is just and appropriate.

The writ petition is wholly misconceived and the same is

accordingly dismissed. All pending applications also stand

disposed of.

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

TN/52

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)