Manjur Ahmed v. Habib Khan — 1994 DIGILAW 720 (MP)

JUDGMENT R.D. Shukla, J. 1. This order shall also dispose of M.A. No. 175/93, Manjur Ahmed v. Habibkhan and Ors. M.A. No. 176/93 Manjur Ahmed and Ors. v.Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 177/93, Shamim Ahmed v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 178/93, Bilkish Khatun v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 183/93, Abdul Gaffar and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 184/93, Khekasha and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 185/93, Mariyambi and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., M.A. No. 186/93, Mohd. Sayeed and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors., and M.A. No. 187/93, Iqbal Ahmed and Ors. v. Habibkhan and Ors. 2. The brief history of the case is that the appellants here are the claimants. They have filed claim petition for award of compensation arising out of a motor accident. The same has been dismissed for non-appearance of claimants. Hence these appeals. 2. The case was received no transfer by the A.M. A.C.T. Sendhwa on 24.8.1992. The order does not disclose as to whether the parties were informed for appearing before the A.M.A.C.T. Sendhwa. However, none of the parties were present on that day and, therefore, the case was adjourned to 23.10.1992. 3. On 23.10.1992 no body appeared for and on behalf of the parties and the case was adjourned to 4.12.1992. On 4.12.1992 the presiding officer was on leave As such the case was listed on 3.2.1993 for orders. 4. On 3.2.1993 the parties were absent. One Shri Mohd. Hussain Advocate appeared probably on the authority of Shri Umarkhan and prayed for adjournment. After hearing the Counsel the Court dismissed the petition with the observations that since the parties are not appearing in the case and therefore the prayer for adjournment is refused. 5. The contention of the learned Counsel for the appellants is that firstly the case was fixed for orders in 3.2.1993. Nothing substantial was to be done and the Counsel appeared on behalf of the claimants and prayed for adjournment in such a situation the claim petition ought not to have been dismissed. 6. As against it learned Counsel for the respondents has submited that the parties were appearing earlier before the Claims Tribunal Mandleshwar and, therefore, they must have had the notice of the case and non-appearance of the claimants, therefore, was not justified and for that reason the Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition. 7. 6. As against it learned Counsel for the respondents has submited that the parties were appearing earlier before the Claims Tribunal Mandleshwar and, therefore, they must have had the notice of the case and non-appearance of the claimants, therefore, was not justified and for that reason the Court was justified in dismissing the claim petition. 7. In our Opinion since there is nothing on record to show that the parties had information about the appearance in the transferee Court the case could not be dismissed in absence of parties unless a notice has been sent to them. Secondly on the earlier date of hearing the presiding officer was not present and, therefore, the case was fixed only for orders and no substantial work was done on that day. 8. Even otherwise rule of natural justice requires that before taking extreme action of dismissing the case a reasonable opportunity of appearance and hearing ought to have been provided. 9. We are constrained to make a remark that Judges are not required only to dispose of the matter but they are required to adjudicate the case and as far as possible the justice should be tried to be done between the parties. The dismissal of petition in such a manner in our opinion, is wholly unjustified. It appears either the learned Judge has not taken into consideration the principles of justice or has dismissed these cases to show an inflated figure of disposal. Either way it is not proper, and we hope that learned Judge would be careful in future. The copy of this judgment be separately sent to the judge concerned and it be kept in his personal file. 11. In view of the observation above, these appeals are accepted. The impugned orders are set aside. Since we have made certain remarks against the workingof the Judge concerned we would not like that the cases should bedecided by him and, therefore, we direct transfer of all these cases to the Court of claims Tribunal Mandleshwar who shall dispose of the matter in accordance with law. In the facts and circumstances of the case the parties shall bear their own costs. The parties are directed to appear before the Claims Tribunal Mandleshwar (District Judge) on 28.10.1994. No further notice for the first appearance should be required.