^€- ?-i&-r':' t;"Y ! "^iS^-^"^ l HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR SSnaJe Bench : Mon'bJeShriDiiiDRaosahebDeshmukh.J. Appeilant Defendant Applicant Respondents JVl.A.No.11 of 2009 Gulab Ram Chandrakar, S/o Sukia! Chandrakar, aged abput 49 years, R/o Neembad^ Arang, Tahsi! Arang, DistrictRaJpur(C.G.) i ¥ersus 1. Kaushik Das, S/o Amardas, Aged about 26 years, R/o Shastri Chowk, Mandir Hasaud, DistriGt Raipur (C.G.) (CSainiant/DecreehoJder) 2. Raju @ Rajesh Yadav, S/o Sukaiu Yadav, Aged about 25 years, R/o ChhedJkhedi, Thana-Mandir Hasaud, DlstrictRaipur (C.G.) T (Defendant/non-appiicant) Appeai under0rder43 RySel(^^ Present :- :1 ! . • . ' : . ' ! i Shri Vlmlesh Bajpai with Shri Suresh Tandon, counsel for the appeilant ORALORDER (Passed on this 11th day of February, 2009) Heard on admission. Learned counse! for the appellant placed [ reiiance on H. Balaknshnanvs. M. Knshnamurthy,AIR 1996 Supreme Court3222. (2) The appeliant/defendant is aggrieved by an order dated 24-12-2008 passed by the 8t Additionai Motor Accidents CSaims TribuRal, (F.T.C.), Raipur (henceforth 'the Tribunal") in M.J.C.No.37y2008 whereby his appiications dated 03-09-2007 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parfe awarddated 28-08-2006 passed by the Tribuna! and under Sectlon 5 6f the Umitation Act for condoning the deiay in 1ri!ing the above application were dismissed as grossly barred by jjmitatjon. ^ ? 7 ir' -2-- ^ |!!;1':1 •' ^" (3) The fojiowing facts were not disputed by Jearned counse! for the appeilant- (A) That the appelianVdefendant was served with the notice of Ciaim Case No.5/2006, (B) That he had engaged counsei to represent him in the abovementioned ciaim's case, (C) That the Tribunal had proceeded ex parte against htm on 14-08-2006, (D) Thatduringexecutionoftheexparfeaward dated 26-08-2006 passed by the Tribunal, the appiicant had engaged counsel on 12-04-2007 torepresent him and the application for setting aside the award dated 26-08-2006 and the application for condoning the delay fherein were fiied by the appiicant cn 03.09-2007, . (E) Theappiicant had also fiied an application under Section 5 pf the LJmitatJon Act for condonation of delay Jn fiiing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. on the ground that he first learnt about the ex parte award on 01-09-2007. (4) A perusal of the impugned order dated 24-12-2008 coupled with the abovementioned undisputed facts go to show that the applicant had admitSed before the Tribunai that after fliing of the wrltten statement, he did not contact his counsel during the pendency of the cjaim case. The most jmportant fact whichjuns countsr to thecase ofths applicant is that not onjy was he careiess in pursuing his case before the Tribunai but despife the fact that he had engaged counsei to represent him in execution case on 12-04-2007, he did not fiie any application for setting aside the ex parte award till 03-09-2007. Under Articie 123 of the Limitation Act, limitation of30 days had begun to run against the applicant on 26-08-2006 i.e.the date of the ex parte award. The fact that the applicant had engaged counsel during execution of the ex parte award would dinchmgly go to showthat he had knowledge of the exparte award havlng been passed against him. The ground taken by the appiicant In the appiicatjon under Order 9 Ruje 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. and -3> c" aiso under Ssctlon 5 of the Limltatlon Act that he iearnt about the ex parte award for the first time on 01-09-2007 is rendered false by his admission that hs had engaged counsel to represent him in the execution case on 12-04-2007. Theappiicant had thus miserabiy failed to show any sufficienf cause for condonation ofdeiay in fiiing the appllcation under Order 9 Ru!e 13 read wlth Section 151 C.P.C. it is thus clear that the applicant was guilty of laches and adopting deiaying tactics. The approach of the appiicant has been one of an extremely indoient iitigant and in the abovementloned facts and circymstances of the case, the Tribunal was wholiy justifled in dlsmissing the appiication under Section 5 of the Limltation Act and asa result thereof the application under Order 9 Ruie 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. on the ground of iimitation by passing a weil reasoned and speaking order. (5) As heid in M BQlakrishnQn vs. M KrishnBmurthy (Supra), condonatlon of delay is a matter of discretion of the Court. Law of llmitation is meant to see that parties do not resort to diiatory tactics and seek thelr remedy promptly. in that case, an appiication for setting aside the ex parfe decree had been dismissed in defauit on 17-02-1993 and having. become suspicious of the conduct of his counsei, the appjicarst had, after 04-08-1995 filed an application for setting aside the order. The trial Court had accepted the explanation offered and condoned the delay. However the High Court reversed the said order while aiiowing the revislon. In the present case, there is suffici'ent material to show that the appiicant has been guilfr/ of iaches and dilatory tactics and had knowledge of the ex parte avvard during execution proceedings and had fited an appiication for setting aside the ex parte award much iater on the basis of a false assertion that he knew about the ex parfe award on 01-09-2007. -41- Turrlane Thus, the facts and drcumstances of the prssent case are ciearly distingulshable. (6) There is no merit in this appeal which Is accordingly dismissed at the stage of admission. Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge /\' ^ ^ft 7