IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.154 of 2008 Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Prasad, son of late Bindeshwar Singh, resident of Village- Gorapar, P.S. Warisaliganj, District- Nawada. ….Opposite Party…Petitioner. Versus Champa Devi, wife of late Sheonandan Chauhan, resident of village- Gora Beldaria, P.S. Warisaliganj, District- Nawada. ……Claimant….Opposite Party. ----------- 10- 14.11.2011 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar for the petitioner, and Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Choudhary for the sole opposite party. This application under the provisions of section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure raises a grievance with respect to the order dated 4.1.2008, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court no.1, Nawada in Motor Vehicles Calim Case No.07 of 2003/03 of 2007 (Champa Devi vs. Bijay Prasad), whereby the learned Claims Tribunal has declined to recall the order dated 4.5.2007, whereby the claim case was set down for ex- parte hearing on account of laches attributable to the present petitioner, the owner of the vehicle. 2. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner herein is the owner of the vehicle which was responsible for the death of the husband of the 2 opposite party herein in a road accident. She filed a claim case under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. The petitioner herein did not file written statement. He was, however, permitted to file written statement belatedly subject to deposit of cost of Rs.100/-. The cost was not deposited and, therefore, nor the written statement was filed. Second opportunity was granted to the petitioner by order dated 4.5.2007, whereby he was directed that his written statement may be accepted subject to payment of costs of Rs.1,000/-. The petitioner failed to deposit the costs on both the occasions, nor the written statement was filed. The petitioner herein filed application dated 13.7.2007, before the learned Claims Tribunal praying therein to recall the order dated 4.5.2007, his written statement may be accepted, and the order for ex-parte hearing may be recalled. The same has been rejected by the impugned order. We entirely agree with the same. 3. It appears to us that the petitioner did not in the initial stages filed written statement in spite of adequate opportunity. He was thereafter permitted to file the same on payment of cost of Rs.100/-, and on the second occasion on further payment of Rs.1,000/-. He failed to make payment on both the occasions as a result his 3 written statement has rightly not been permitted to be filed and, therefore, the order for ex-parte hearing cannot be faulted. It is thus evident that the petitioner has not only been negligent, but has purposely been trying to delay disposal of the claim case to the detriment of the widow. The learned tribunal has rightly emphasized that two witnesses have already been examined when he passed the impugned order. 4. We do not find any merit in this civil revision application and is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/