.-^ ^u^^Kni-^i/'XSv-iF"- (y^^yS^^^uy^^-'S^^^.ti^^^tiT'^^ 'f^ S^S^JiXQI''*G:QVR7 OF JCT3ICAT%tE AT JABALPUR, 'MP, ia Writ Petltion SQ.H te -1 ^) /99. PE'CTTXON.ES Smt. Fal KuBWar, Widow of late HIralal, qged about 36 yearSy. R/o. Katkena Colllery, Quarter Ho* 68, PS- Patna Tehsll BaJ.Kantnpur, Slstrict- Sarguja, (Now Korea, MP)» -r -Versus- RESPOMDENTS. 1. Asslstant Manager, Katkona CoUlery, Soath Eastern Ceal Flelds Ltd. KatKona Tehsli BalkuntKpur Disfct- Sarguja (Neiir Korea,) MP. Rt 2. CofflmissXoner, for Werk.Man's Canpensatien ( Iiabour Court ) Amb.i.kapur. Bistrict- Sargaja,. PETITIOH VaBBR ARTICLES 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF—IHDIA. 3o XI-HC-78 3FST'qraTaq', ®Tfl«'!S,Rilll'M; . ^? ^^/^l *ll*'l(41Sh»l|ch • ^[ 200 Sii^s'i yaw ('i,ci(^Gi<t'if) 3ii^r?n'^(Ri cRT SIT^OT sETRi tWW^S^ '"M s^iTWHferan^r 24-7-2006 Pertisal Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advoca|t petitioner. Shri P.S. Koshy, counsel for l-1eard. This petition is filed under against the dismissal of claim. filed by the widow as the husbanitl The case was fixed for hearing petitioner nor her counsei was dismissed in default. Thereafter, Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civi| the ground shows that the daily d| could not remember the date of make his aDDearance. The appl'cat the case was opposed by respond^i Commissioner dismissed the appj 14-5-1999 (Annexure-P/6) finding t|- Learned counset appearinj impugned order refusing to not sustainable. He a!so submittei) to appear and the party shouid nof counsel. It is contended that it is| employment and there is no ailegat| te and Shri A.K. Prasad, counsel for the pr^sent. restorel the qilllcl'sfl-1 *1|t(ClTfftec^l'<Rl'KI< ^i 3l1^IT 311^1 espondentNo.1. 4rticle 226/227 of the Constitution of India of the record shows that this claim is died during the course of employment. jin 18-11-1998. On that date neither the Accordingiy the claim petition was |he petitioner filed an application under Procedure for restoration of the case and fary of the local counsel was lost and he learing and for this reason he could not :ion filed by the petitioner for restoration of snt No.1. After hearing the parties, learned ication of the petitioner vide order dated hat no sufficient reason has been shown. for the petitioner contended that the case is illegai and contrary to !aw and that petitionsr had engaged the counsel suffer because of mistake or error of the a ctaim where the husband died during lon of mala fide. P.T.O. •iiEa 3?. XI-HC-78 *ii*ifii sf»»n<*i 3sr^traRTO, aTflu'is, RiciijMy . ^ ^^l^al ^[ 200 3TT^?rira^T ('pt3s^8r) STI^Tw [^•li* tPTT sn^r giirf^ STBTW flf?cT Sfl^T 'L-1 Whereas Shri Koshy, learfied counsel appearing for respondent No.1, contended that the petitioner wa| He supported the impugned orde| The provisions of Order 91 engaged counsel. No mala fide ii vs. Munshilal and another rejjiorted Supreme Court has heid that:- ".....underour pre^ the parties genera\ the obligatton brief him, pay the\ trust the iearned} things. The party a rural area and\ Court's procedure.\ may remain look afier his inte^ the appeal, the not onty not requir^ party 'having effectively parSci^ assured that he inquire as to what^ regard to his the advocate that when it is listed." cfoAe fcy|afe hsls Hon'ble Supreme Court fuifther held that:- "The problem that that the party omission, or misde obviously is in the Hon'ble Supreme Court i and others reported in +i'i)(c)'ih-f t<i4<-iTfftec^l'<R]^i< ^ia.rRriTsn^T s gross negligent in looking after the case. Rule 9 C.P.C. are not penat. The party had 3 alleged. In the case of Rafiq and another in AIR 1981 SC 1400, Hon'bte the ;^ent adversary legal system where f/y appear through theiradvocates, of thft parties is to select his advocate, 1 fees demanded by him and then advocate to do the rest of the i^ay be a villager or may belong to may have no knowledge of the [Afier engag'ng a lawyer, the party supr^nely confident that the lawyer wiii ^est. At the time of the hearing of p^rsonal appearance of the party is •f requir^d but hardly usefut. Therefore, the everything in his power to ifJ^te in the pmceedings can rest neither to go to ihe High Court to i|s happening in the High Court with appe^lnor is heto act as a watohdog of the later appears in the matter Ipgitates us is whether it is proper shouW suffer for the inaction, deliberate l[neanoiir of his agent. The answer ih the case of G.P. Shrivastava vs. R.K. 1(2000) 3 SCC 54, has held that:- P.T.O. ^ XI-HC-78 Sn^TqiTf^lN; gqTsn^Tshiiii Govwi/P HTH^II !h<1|cb s^'-^TraRTO', ytrid'lG, KidKHy _ (^P ^^^\h^ 200 STr^Ttra^T ('^3^er) ?RITWffl?a'3f]^T -I- "Ttie Courts have sufficient cause circumstances of et non-appearance absence was mad^ and cannot be circumstances "was prevented appearing" must court to do particularly when imputable to the r^fers ^ wsde discretion in deciding the ke^jping jn view the peculiar facts and fech case. The sufficient cause for to the date on which the a ground for prooeeding exparte \stretched to rety upon other anWor in time" and ffiat "the words l&y any sufficient cause from liberally construed to enable the justica between the parties no negiigence or inacb'on is comf^ete enfng party. dedilt This Court has aiso Saraswati Bai & others vs. 184. Having considered the on record and further that the behaif of the widow as her husb^i allegation of mala fide and in vief the cases of Rafiq and another] decision of this Court in the cas^ ends of justice, the order dated] leamed Commissioner is set as[ number and the case of the pt accordance with law as expeditioitsiy Parties are entitled for certif Copy ofthis order be supp| with the similar matter in the case of Kattabai & others reported in 2002 (2} CGU <»ii<<T<-]41-< Kii<-iTifte^<Ri«i< ^l3Tl^T3D^T factts and circumstances of the case, materia! p^titioner is a widow and claim petition is on ^nd died during empioyment and there is no fi/ of the judgments of the Supreme Court in (supra), G.P. Shrivastava (supra) and the of Saraswati Bai & others (supra), in the 14-5-1999 (Annexure-P/6) passed by the [de and the case is restored to its original fetitioner be decided on its own merits in as possible. ified copy ofthis order as per rules. lied to the Court below. Fakhruddih Jtidge P.T.O. :T!