1
Court No.21
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.2650 of 2010
Sunil Kumar
Versus
Rama Devi and others
Hon'ble V.K. Shukla, J.
Present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing of the
order dated 26.11.2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Court No.13,
Kanpur Nagar in Misc. Case No.54/74/05 in Claim Petition No.156 of 1989,
Sunil Kumar Versus Rama Devi and others.
Factual position, which emerges in the present case, is that Claim
Petition No.156 of 1989 was filed by Rama Devi against Sunil Kumar and
others, mentioning therein that the deceased Mewa Lal was travelling by U.P.
Roadways Bus No. URG 0576 and on account of rash and negligent driving of
Jeep No. UPT 1007, accident took place, wherein Mewa Lal died. In the said
claim petition, the petitioner was also arrayed as party. In the said proceedings
on repeated occasions notices were sent to the petitioner by registered post
on the correct address of the petitioner, and ultimately when no response was
made, orders were passed on 09.03.2009 for publication, and then on
20.03.2004 treating the service as sufficient proceedings were undertaken
exparte, and after taking evidence, the suit was decreed on 15.04.2004. The
petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside
exparte award. Said application had been considered and finding of fact has
been returned that in spite of knowledge of the entire proceedings in question,
the petitioner did not turn up to contest the proceedings. The Motor Accident
Claims Tribunal has taken note of the fact that claim petition is of the year 1989
and on various occasions notices were sent by registered post at the correct
address of the petitioner, and thereafter even publication was made in
newspaper “Kanpur Ujala” on 15.03.2004, and then proceedings have been
drawn.
Once all possible steps were undertaken to serve the petitioner on his
correct address by registered post as well as by publication, then in this
background to say that the petitioner had no information of the proceedings
2
cannot be accepted. The Additional District Judge has taken rightful view in the
matter, which requires no interference.
Consequently, writ petition is dismissed.
22.01.2010
SRY