High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Ram Sakal And Another v. Indra Deo And Others - WRIT - C No. 36498 of 2004  RD-AH 12263 (18 July 2007)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.36498 of 2004
Ram Sakal and another Vs. Indra deo Yadav and others
Hon'ble S.U. Khan, J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Petitioners were opposite parties No.1 & 2, in Motor Accident Claim Petition No.69 of 1990, Kamta Yadav Vs. Ram Sagar Rai and others (Kamta Yadav is respondent No.2 and Ram Sagar Rai is petitioner No.2 in this writ petition). The claim petition was allowed ex parte on 29.03.1993 by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ist A.D.J. Varanasi. The claim was allowed for Rs.1,80,000/- with 12% per annum interest. Both the petitioners filed separate restoration applications, which were registered as Misc. Case No.5 & 9 of 2000. The learned A.D.J. allowed both the restoration applications on 30.01.2004 conditionally. Copy of both orders are Annexure 7 & 8 to the writ petition. The learned A.D.J. Varanasi allowed the restoration applications with the condition that the entire decreetal amount along with decreed interest till the date of order, i.e. 30.01.2004, should be deposited within a month. It was further directed that in case of failure to deposit the amount, restoration applications would be treated to have been dismissed. On 03.07.2004 restoration applications were dismissed for non compliance of the condition as no amount had been deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of orders dated 30.01.2004. This writ petition is directed against condition imposed by the orders dated 30.01.2004 and the orders dated 03.07.2004.
Through interim order dated 13.09.2004 passed in this writ petition, it was directed that in case petitioners deposited half of the amount as due on the date of the interim order, then no recovery proceedings should be taken in pursuance of the award against the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that about an amount of Rs.1,80,000/- has been deposited by the petitioners in pursuance of the interim order.
It is correct that while allowing the restoration applications, reasonable condition may be imposed and directing the defendant to deposit the part of the decreetal amount is also a reasonable condition. However direction to deposit the entire decreetal amount is an extremely onerous condition.
Accordingly, writ petition is allowed in part. The condition imposed in the restoration orders dated 30.01.2004 is modified. The amount deposited under interim order passed in this writ petition on 13.09.2004 shall be treated to be sufficient compliance of condition imposed along with the restoration order. Orders dated 03.07.2004 are set aside.
The said amount shall not be disbursed to any party until final decision of the claim petition. If the claim petition is allowed, then the said amount shall be paid to the claimant in accordance with the ultimate award. However if the claim is dismissed or decreed for lesser amount, then the deposited amount or part thereof shall be returned to the petitioner, who has deposited the amount. Both the parties are directed to appear before Ist A.D.J. Varanasi on 17.08.2007.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.