United India Insurance Company Limited v. Laxman Tati
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR M.C.C.
No.
of 201 United India Insurance Company Limited, Anupama Chowk, Jagdalpur, Post Jagdalpur, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh, (Insurance Company).
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Laxman Tati, S/o Late Boda Tati, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Dhumkapara, Ganjenar, Police Station Kuakonda, Tahsil Kuakonda, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
2. Manglu Tati, S/o Late Boda Tati, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Dhumkapara, Ganjenar, Police Station Kuakonda, Tahsil Kuakonda, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
3. Bhupendra Kumar Ilami, S/o Lakhma Ilami (Driver), Aged About 28 Years, R/o Bade Bacheli, Tamopara, Police Station Bacheli, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh.
4. Omprakash Sharma, S/o Late Moolchand Sharma, Aged About 41 Years, Old Market Bacheli, Police Station Bacheli, District South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh (Vehicle Owner). ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Shri H. B. Agrawal, Senior counsel along with Shri Pankaj Agrawal, Advocate.
For Respondents : None.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Agrawal Order On Board 06.08.2018 1.
Heard on I.A. No. 01/2018, an application for condonation of delay of 313 days in filing this MCC.
2.
On due consideration, the application is allowed and the delay of 313 days in filing the MCC is accordingly condoned. 3.
Also heard on admission.
4.
This M.C.C. has been filed for restoration of MAC No.214/2017, which was dismissed in default for non-compliance of the order dated 16.02.2017.
5.
Shri Agrawal submits that though his junior had appeared on the said date but she was not aware with regard to the peremptory direction as contained therein. Therefore, they were not aware with regard to the said peremptory order and when they enquired about the status of the case, then only they came to know that for non-compliance of the said order dated 16.02.2017, the said miscellaneous appeal has already been treated as dismissed owing to the non-compliance of the direction contained therein. Thereafter on 07.02.2018, they applied for obtaining the certified copy of the same and in pursuance thereof, the copy was delivered on 27.02.2018 and immediately thereafter on 01.03.2018, the instant application has been filed.
It is submitted further that the default was in relation to non-furnishing of the receipt as required under Section 173 of the Act, 1988 and the same has already been paid on 30.01.2017. It is, however, submitted herein that since the same was not available with him, therefore, it could not be filed in time before this Court.
dated 16.02.2017 was not deliberate and infact it was done owing to bonafide mistake.
6.
Having considered of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, I am inclined to allow this application, subject to furnishing the copy of receipt of Rs. 25,000/- within a period of two weeks from today. 7.
The MAC No. 214/2017 dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 16.02.2017 is restored to its original number subject to compliance of the aforesaid direction. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Deepti Jha