SCA/2970/2008 1/4 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 2970 of 2008 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= ARVIND NARANABHA GADHVI - Petitioner(s) Versus RAVIKUMAR RAMESHCHANDRA SANI & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR HARSHAD K PATEL for Petitioner(s) : 1, NOTICE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 1, MR KALPESH N SHASTRI for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL Date : 28/08/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT 1. Rule. Mr. Shastri learned Counsel waives service of notice of rule for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. SCA/2970/2008 2/4 JUDGMENT 2. with the consent of the learned Counsel appearing for both the sides, the matter is finally heard today. 3. The short facts of the case appear to be that the petitioner filed claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal being M.A.C.P. No. 906 of 1998 for recovery of the compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/-. The tribunal had passed the order for interim compensation of Rs. 25,000/-. Thereafter, on 5.6.2007, learned advocate for the petitioner as well as respondent submitted purshis that they are agreeable for the compensation, which is paid, and they are not desirous to proceed with the matter. The tribunal acted upon the same, and disposed of the matter vide order dated 5.6.2007. Under these circumstances, the present petition. 4. Heard Mr. Patel learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Shastri learned Counsel for the respondents. 5. The petitioner has filed the affidavit stating that the advocate has committed an error and mistake in bonafide, because he considered that there is disability to the extent of 12 percent SCA/2970/2008 3/4 JUDGMENT only. The petitioner is now desirous to proceed with the matter, and as per his declaration, the concession given by the advocate, was without proper instructions by the petitioner. 6. Mr. Shastri learned Counsel for the respondents is not in a position to show any material on the basis of which, it can be said that there was any authority on the part of the advocate for such purpose. It appears that the tribunal has acted upon the purshis, and has disposed of the matter accordingly. 7. Considering the affidavit filed by the petitioner, as the petitioner is desirous to proceed with the matter in accordance with law before the tribunal, if such is permitted, no prejudice will be caused. Further, no material is produced on record to show that either side had taken any undue benefit from the declaration filed before the tribunal, which led the tribunal to disposed of the matter. 8. In view of the above, the impugned decision of the tribunal for disposal of the matter on the basis of purshish filed by the advocate of the SCA/2970/2008 4/4 JUDGMENT petitioner is quashed and set aside with the direction that the M.A.C.P. No. 906 of 1998 shall stand restored to the file of the tribunal. The tribunal shall decide the same in accordance with law, after giving opportunity of hearing to both the sides. 9. The petition is allowed to the aforesaid extent. Rule made absolute accordingly. (JAYANT PATEL, J.) Suresh*