Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 480 (JHR)

Nanhak @ Nanku Bhuian v. Govind Gope

2018-02-23

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY

body2018
JUDGMENT Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J. – Heard Mr. Bijay Kr. Sinha, counsel appears on behalf of the petitioner. 2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that as per office note the respondent has refused to accept notice and accordingly the notice upon respondent is validly served. 3. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dated 25.04.2014 passed in Execution Case No.1 of 2007 by the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra whereby the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra has dismissed the Execution Case No. 01 of 07 which was filed for realization of amount of Award granted under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicle Act. 4. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the entire order-sheet which is annexed along with the writ petition as contained in Annexure-3 submits that the petitioner has not been negligent in conducting the case and the matter has been conducted by the counsel from time to time, who used to inform the petitioner regarding the progress of the case. Counsel for the petitioner by referring to the para-9 of the writ petition submits that there has been no intentional delay or laches on the part of the petitioner and the Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chatra has not taken this fact into consideration and has dismissed the execution case itself. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that he was informed by the advocate that he has been throughout making a request for an exparte hearing before the court below but the same was not taken up. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that if the impugned order is allowed to stand, the petitioner would suffer heavily. The counsel submits that one opportunity may be granted to the petitioner. 5. Considering the submission of the petitioner regarding service of notice the refusal to accept notice by the respondent is accepted as valid service of notice. 6. Without entering into the merit of the matter and considering the fact that the petitioner is the claimant and in order to give one more chance to the petitioner, the impugned order dated 25.04.2014 is hereby set-aside with a direction to the petitioner to appear before the Execution Court of Presiding Officer, Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Chatra in Execution Case No. 01 of 2007 on 15.03.2018. Upon appearance of the petitioner the execution court is directed to proceed with the matter. The petitioner undertakes that he will not take any unnecessary adjournment in the matter and cooperate with the execution proceedings. The execution court may issue fresh notice upon the respondent. 7. The writ petition is allowed with the aforesaid observations and directions.