AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hari Nath Tilhari, J.—Heard.
The present revision petition is misconceived. No doubt, by an order dated 28.6.2000, the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (the Principal Civil Judge, Bangalore Rural District, Bangalore) has dismissed the M.V.C. No. 311 of 1990 for non-prosecution. The proper remedy available to the revision petitioner is under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking restoration of the case after showing sufficient cause for his absence.
The present revision petition is misconceived and is not maintainable. No doubt, if any delay is found in moving the application for restoration, the applicant can take and avail the benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act while moving the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in the moving of or filing of an application under Order 9, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Subject to the observations, the revision petition is hereby dismissed on the ground that proper remedy for the petitioner is to move under Order 9, Rule 9 read with Rule 254 of the Motor Vehicles Rules.