Iqbal Kaur vs Surinder Singh

Rakesh Garg, J.—The instant appeal against the Award of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Karnal was dismissed for want of prosecution by this Court vide order dated 18.09.2007 by passing the following order:

A perusal of the order dated 16.7.2001 passed by the Division Bench of this Court, the learned counsel for the appellant was directed to serve the respondents No. 1, 4 and 7. It was further directed that list the case after the service is complete.

The learned counsel for the appellant has not taken any steps to complete the service of unserved respondents No. 1, 4 and 7.

As per the office report, the learned counsel for the appellant was requested number of times to file the addresses of the unserved respondents but till today he has not done the needful.

It appears that the present matter is being treated in a leisurely fashion and the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the present appeal.

For this lapse, the appellant must suffer.

Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.

The appellant has filed CM No. 8750-CII of 2014 for recalling of the aforesaid order and restoration of the appeal to its original number submitting that she is an old woman and could not complete service upon the respondents for want of their addresses.

Along with the aforesaid application, the appellant has also filed another application viz. CM No. 8749-CII of 2014 seeking condonation of delay of 2254 days in filing the application for recalling of the aforesaid order. In this application, it has been stated that learned counsel for the appellant could not come to know about the listing of the case, and thereafter, he came to know about the fact that the appeal had already been decided in the year 2007 only on filing an application for early hearing, and thus, the delay was bonafide and unintentional and the same was liable to be condoned.

I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-appellant.

There is a huge delay of 2254 days in filing restoration application. It may further be noticed that on 16.07.2001, this Court had ordered listing of the instant appeal after completion of service. Since the appellant failed to complete service, the case was listed on 18.09.2007 for necessary orders as according to the office report, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant was requested a number of times to file addresses of the unserved respondents but he failed to take necessary steps.

In view of the aforesaid facts, as noticed in the order dated 16.07.2001 and the order dated 18.09.2007, the explanation submitted by the applicant-appellant to condone the delay of 2254 days in filing restoration application, is not sustainable, as the order was passed in this appeal in the presence of counsel representing the applicant-appellant. Thus, there are no sufficient reasons to condone such a huge delay of 2254 days in filing the application for recalling of the order dated 18.09.2007, whereby this appeal was dismissed for non prosecution.

Dismissed.