CR No. 1122 of 2009 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
CR No. 1122 of 2009
Date of decision March 2, 2009
Sandeep Singh
....... Petitioner
Versus
M/s Pasricha Cloth House and another
........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
Present:- Mr. Parminder Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner .
****
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
digest?
K. Kannan, J (oral).
1. The revision is against an order passed by the
Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal dismissing the petition for non-
appearance of the petitioner on the day when the case had been posed. It
appears that the petitioner filed a petition for restoration and it was objected
to by the respondent that the restoration application was not maintainable
and that the remedy was only before the High Court. On the basis of said
objection it appears that the petitioner had withdrawn the petition and he
has filed the revision against the order of dismissal of the petition for non-
prosecution. The order for dismissing the petition for non-prosecution has
been passed as early as on 28.8.2007 and the revision is filed in the year
2009.
2. Although the revision is clearly barred by
limitation and also the contention that the petition which is dismissed
CR No. 1122 of 2009 2
for non-prosecution could not be restored are both untenable, I still
consider it necessary to give an opportunity to the party to prosecute the
case on merits. The withdrawal of the petition itself has come only by the
untenable objections taken by the counsel for the Insurance Company.
The parties are invariably guided by advice of the counsel and shall not be
allowed to suffer by wrong advise and by filing a revision under Article 227
in a matter where the appropriate remedy would have been only to file a
petition, for restoration of the claim petition which was dismissed not on
merits but for non-appearance of the parties.
3. Under the circumstances, I set aside the order of
dismissal made by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal on
28.8.2007 and dispense with notice to the respondent in the revision
petition only on account of the untenability of the stand taken by the
Insurance Company and to ensure quicker conclusion of the proceedings.
The Civil revision is disposed of directing the Motor Accident Claims
Tribunal to restore the petition which was dismissed for default on
28.8.2007 and dispose of the case on merits in accordance with law.
4. Parties shall appear before the Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal on 31.3.2009.
(K. KANNAN)
JUDGE
March 2, 2009
archana