Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SMT. POONAM RAWAL versus MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM TRIBUNAL/A.D.J. & OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Smt. Poonam Rawal v. Motor Accident Claim Tribunal/A.D.J. & Others - WRIT - C No. 17270 of 2004 [2006] RD-AH 11369 (12 July 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Hon'ble Rajes Kumar, J.

In the present petition, petitioner is a claimant and filed a Motor Accident Claim no.703 of 1999 before the respondent no. 1.

In the aforesaid claim petition, date was fixed on 9.1.2004.  Petitioner sought adjournment on the said date, but the same was refused on the ground that on the earlier occasion, it was stated that no further adjournment would be allowed.  It has also been stated that in the application, name of the witnesses have not been stated nor medical certificate has been annexed.  After rejecting the adjournment application, right of petitioner to adduce evidence has also been closed.  The recalling application filed by the petitioner has also been rejected vide order dated 24.1.2004 and again on 22.3.2004.  

By means of the present petition, petitioner has challenged the order dated 09.1.2004, by which, the petitioner's adjournment application has been rejected and opportunity to adduce evidence has been closed as well as the order dated 24.1.2004 and 22.3.2004, by which, the recalling applications have been rejected.

Heard Sri V. P. Mishra, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Sri Anupam Shukla, learned Counsel for the respondent no. 2.

Despite the time being allowed, no Counter-affidavit has been filed.  Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent no. 1 has illegally denied the right of the petitioner to adduce evidence after rejecting the adjournment application.  He submitted that on various occasions, the respondents sought adjournment even after 09.1.2004.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, order dated 09.1.2004 to the extent denying the right of the petitioner to adduce evidence is set aside.  The respondent no. 1 is directed to provide one more opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence.  Petitioner may appear alongwith the Certified copy of this order on 25.07.2006 before the respondent no. 1.  The respondent no. 1 is directed to fix date convenient to the parties concerned for adducing evidence.

With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

Dt:12.07.2006.

MZ/17270/04.


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.