Lakhbir Singh vs Davinder Kaur And Others on 17 August, 2009

C.R.No.3039 of 2009


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH

                                 C.R.No.3039 of 2009.
                                 Decided on August 17, 2009.

Lakhbir Singh

                                                       .. Petitioner

                 VERSUS

Davinder Kaur and others.

                                                    .. Respondents

                       ***

CORAM:           HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI

PRESENT          Ms.Indu Bahri, Advocate, for
                 Mr.S.K.Mahajan, Advocate,
                 for the petitioner.

                 Mr.Pardeep Rajput, Advocate,
                 for respondent No.1.

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

Vide impugned order dated 16.02.2009, the Motor

Accident Claims Tribunal, has permitted the claimant-respondent to

withdraw the claim petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on

account of technical flaw.

Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the

said permission has been granted contrary to the provisions of Order

23 Rule 1 CPC.

The respondent had not been able to point out any

formal defect or any technical flaw. The claimant-respondent had led

evidence and produced witnesses, but on 16.02.2009, instead of

… 1
C.R.No.3039 of 2009

producing the witnesses of the claimant, counsel for the claimant

made a statement for withdrawal of the claim petition with a request

for permission to file fresh one.

I have heard counsel for the petitioner as well as

counsel for the respondents.

Counsel for the respondents has submitted that on

account of improper verification as required under Order Rule 14

CPC, and other technicalities which have though not been noted in

the order, the respondent-claimant wanted to withdraw the petition

and file a fresh one.

Without expression of any opinion regarding the

technical flaws, I do not deem appropriate to interfere in the order.

However, I am of the opinion that the claim Tribunal, should have

ordered the deposit of costs in case fresh claim petition is filed on

the same cause of action.

I do not find any ground to interfere in the order

dated 16.02.2009, because it has been informed by counsel for the

respondents that the fresh petition has been filed and the written

statement has also been filed by the petitioner.

In view of the above circumstances, this petition is

disposed of having rendered infructuous.

(M.M.S.BEDI)
JUDGE
August 17, 2009.

rka

… 2