AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.K. Gangele, J.
M.P.S. Raghuvanshi, Advocate for the appellant.
R. P. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 to 6.
Shri Arvind Kumar Agrawal, advocate for the respondent No. 9-Insurance Company.
Heard.
The appellant has filed this appeal against the Order dated 9-1-2002, passed in M.J.C. No. 6/2000.
The appellant has filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the award dated 31-1-2000, passed in Claim Case No. 15/1995. Appellant is the owner. A claim case was filed against him with regard to an accident. It was registered as Claim Case No. 15/1995. Notice of the case was sent to the appellant on 23-11-1995 by Registered Post. The appellant did not appear before the Court. The appellant filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC before the Tribunal for setting aside the ex parte award. The award of the case was passed on 29-4-1999 and the order of ex parte against the appellant was passed on 23-11-1995. Thereafter, after a period of 10 months of passing the award, the appellant filed the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the award. However, the appellant has not filed any application u/s 5 of Limitation Act along with the application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code.
From the facts of the case, it is clear that the appellant has filed the application for setting aside ex parte award under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC after delay. He did not file any application for condonation of delay, which required u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. In such circumstances, the Court has rightly held that the application of the appellant under Order 9, Rule 13 of CPC was not maintainable. On merits also the Court has recorded the finding that notice was issued to the appellant by Registered Post. Appellant is the owner of the truck and he had information about the accident. In such circumstances, in my opinion, there is no merit in this appeal. It is hereby dismissed. No order as to cost.