Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 662 (RAJ)

United India Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Union of India

2003-05-01

K.S.RATHORE, S.K.KESHOTE

body2003
Judgment S.K. Keshote, J.-Since all these four appeals arise from the common order dated 18th of November, 1996 of the learned Single Judge delivered in 10 S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, they are taken up for hearing together and are being decided by this common order. 1. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 2008/97 (Def) .2. This appeal is presented on 22.1997. The appeal is barred by 21 days but the appellants have not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The registry has pointed out following other defects, 1. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-not affixed on order. 2. Power has not been filed. 3. Court fee stamps of Rs. 10/-not affixed on memo of appeal. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed. 4. Type copy of order has not been filed. 3. These defects were pointed on 26.1997. Though, more than five years have already passed the same are not removed, On 27.4.1998 the matter was placed before the Additional Registrar (Admn.) but none put appearance for the appellant. The matter was ordered to be placed in the court. Then on 26.3.2003 the matter was placed before the Deputy Registrar (Jdul.) but nobody remained present for the appellant. Still the Deputy Registrar. (Judl.) granted seven days time to the appellant to remove the defects but the same are not removed. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for last opportunity to remove these defects. 2. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 2191/97 (Def) 4. This appeal is presented on 22.1997. The appeal is barred by 68 days but the appellant has not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The registry has pointed out following other defects, 1. Certified copy of order dt. 111.96 has not been filed. Photo copy has been filed. Application for dispensation of filing certified copy has not been filed. .2. Court fee stamps of Rs. 1OA not affixed on memo of appeal. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed. 3. Type copy of order has not been filed. 4. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-not affixed on the order dt. 111.96. 5. Power has not been filed. 5. These defects were pointed on 14.1997. Though, more than five years have already passed the same are not removed. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed. 3. Type copy of order has not been filed. 4. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-not affixed on the order dt. 111.96. 5. Power has not been filed. 5. These defects were pointed on 14.1997. Though, more than five years have already passed the same are not removed. The matter was placed in court on 19.1997 but the matter could not reach and it was adjourned. Thereafter it could not be listed in court. On 26.3.2003 it was placed before the Deputy Registrar (Judl.). He granted seven days time to remove the defects. Still the defects have not been removed. The matter is placed on 24.2003 in the Court. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for last opportunity to remove these defects. 3. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 2 193/97 Def) 6. This appeal is presented on 22.1997. The appeal is barred by 68 days but the appellant has not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The registry has pointed out following other defects, 1. Certified copy of order dt. 111.96 has not been filed. Photo copy has been filed. Application for dispensation of filing certified copy has not been filed. .2. Court fee stamps of Rs. 10/-not affixed on memo of appeal. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed. 3. Type copy of order has not been filed. 4. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-not affixed on the order dt. 111.96. 5. Power has not been filed. .7. These defects were pointed on 14.1997. Though, more than five years have already passed the same are not removed. The matter was placed in court on 19.1997 but the matter could not reach and it was adjourned. Thereafter it was listed in court on 2 2.2002 and two weeks’ time was granted to cure the defects. The defects were not removed. The matter was again placed before the court on 23.2002. On this date also time was prayed for to remove the defects. Time as prayed for was granted and the matter was adjourned to 24.2003. Still the defects are not removed. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for granted of last opportunity to remove these defects. .4. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3053/97 (Def) 8. This appeal is presented on 22.1997. Time as prayed for was granted and the matter was adjourned to 24.2003. Still the defects are not removed. The learned counsel for the appellant prays for granted of last opportunity to remove these defects. .4. D.B. Special Appeal (Civil) No. 3053/97 (Def) 8. This appeal is presented on 22.1997. The appeal is barred by 68 days but the appellant has not filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of this delay. The registry has pointed but following other defects, 1. Certified copy of order dt, 111.96 has not been filed; Photo copy has been filed. Application for dispensation of filing certified copy has not been filed. .2. Court fee stamps of Rs. 10/-not affixed on memo of appeal at the time of presentation. No such application under Section 149 CPC has been filed., 3. Type copy of order has not been filed. 4. Court fee stamps of Rs. 2/-not affixed on the order dt. 111.96. 5. Power has not been filed. 6. Type copy of order have not been filed in extra sets. 9. These defects were pointed on 14.1997. Though, more than five years have already passed the same are not removed. The matter was placed in court on 9.1997 and two weeks time was granted to the counsel for the appellant to removed the defects. The defects were not removed. It was agains listed in court on 24.1998 and two weeks time was granted for removing the defects. The defects were not removed. The matter was placed in court on 2 2.2002 and learned counsel for the appellant prayed for two weeks time to cure the defects. Time prayed for was granted. Defects were not cured. Agains the matter was placed on 20.11.2002 last opportunity as prayed for of one week was granted to remove the defects, but the defects were not cured by the appellants. The matter was agains listed in court on 23.2003 and on that date time was prayed for to take instruction in the matter. The arguments were heard in part and the matter was adjourned to 24.2003 for completion of arguments. Still the defects are not removed. 10. Fromthe aforestated facts of these four appeals it is clear how negligently, carelessly and unmindful to their duties which they one to their employer and the court, the Officers of the appellant Company file the matters in the courts. Still the defects are not removed. 10. Fromthe aforestated facts of these four appeals it is clear how negligently, carelessly and unmindful to their duties which they one to their employer and the court, the Officers of the appellant Company file the matters in the courts. The appellant Company, by and large, is a big litigant in the courts. The appellant company is having Law cell where the Law Officers are posted. Still it is unfortunate that such defective appeals-are presented. All the appeals are barred by time. Application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act have not been filed. Worst part is that even court fees has not been paid on the memo of appeal. We fail to understand what for the appellant company is having law cell or the department in the Office. If that way the matters are to be dealt with, we are of the opinion that the appellant company should not bear the heavy expenses of these elephants posted in its law cell. Such defective appeals can be prepared and presented by a Class IV employee and thus, the appellant company is not required to have these law officers on a huge salaries. 11. Otherwise also the appellant company owes duty to the public as well as to the court. It is not expected from it to waste the public money by filing such defective papers and to consume valuable and precious judicial time of the courts. 12. Second aspect of the matter is that by filing such defective papers the appellant company is unnecessarily increasing the work of the courts which are already heavily burdened. From the proceedings of these four appeals it is clearly borne out how levishly the appellant company wasted the valuable and precious judicial time of the court. The time which has been consumed in these defective appeals, could have been better utilised in deciding other old matters. It is a clear case of negligence, carelessness and unmindful to their duties of the Officers concerned of the appellant company. Still the appellant company, as we have noticed in other cases where strictures were passed, do not take any action against the defaulting or erring officials/officers who file defective papers in the courts. Filing of such defective papers in the courts deserves to be deprecated and the court strongly deprecate the same. 13. Still the appellant company, as we have noticed in other cases where strictures were passed, do not take any action against the defaulting or erring officials/officers who file defective papers in the courts. Filing of such defective papers in the courts deserves to be deprecated and the court strongly deprecate the same. 13. Neither it is a prestigious issue nor it is necessary to file appeals in each and every case and not to permit any order of the courts or the tribunals to go unchallenged. In our opinion, if the award passed by tribunal is just and reasonable or the order passed by this court in a given case is just and reasonable, it should be accepted by the company rather than to go in appeals, wasting the public money and also the valuable and precious judicial time of the courts. The Company should be very selective in filing the appeals/litigations in the Courts. It is obligatory on the part of the Company to see that the courts are not burdened with frivolous,baseless, unwarranted and avoidable litigation. The matters are not examined in this way and that is how indiscriminately the appeals are being filed. 14. The appellant company insures the motor vehicles with undertaking legal and pious obligation to reimburse for the liability of the insured. But it is not discharging its legal duty and pious obligation and rather it is spending huge amount of the public in unwarranted, avoidable, uncalled for, frivolous and baseless litigations and these appeals are clear example of this category of litigations. 15. We do not find any justification whatsoever in this prayer made by the learned counsel for the appellant company to grant further indulgence to remove the defects. More than five years time was available with the appellant company, if it honestly desires, to prosecute these appeals and to remove the defects pointed out by the registry. That has not been done. Several opportunities were granted on the request made on behalf of the appellant company to remove the defects but the appellant company did not chose to remove the same. In these circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case where further opportunity is to be granted to the appellant company to remove the defects and accordingly we decline the same. 16. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation. 17. In these circumstances, we do not consider it to be a fit case where further opportunity is to be granted to the appellant company to remove the defects and accordingly we decline the same. 16. In the result, all the four appeals are dismissed as barred by limitation. 17. In our considered opinion it is a case where exemplary costs is to be imposed against the appellant company for wasting the valuable and precious judicial time of the court as well as of the registry of the court. Accordingly, the appellant company is directed to Rs. 1000/-(Rs. one thousand) in each appeal, as costs. The amount of costs is to be deposited in the Advocates Welfare Fund, The appellant company is directed to submit the receipt of the deposite ot the amount of costs, in the registry immediately after the same is deposited. 18. It is made clear that the appellant company is free to take appropriate action against the erring/defaulting officers/officials who are responsible for filing of these defective appeals. The appellant company is also free to recover the amount of costs as well as the amount of expenditure incurred in filing of these defective appeals, from the erring/defaulting officer/officials. The appellant company is directed to report the action, if any, taken against the erring/defaulting officers/officials, to the Court. A copy of this order be sent to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director of the appellant Company through its Regional Manager, Jaipur.