1 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED : 19.12.2011 CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.RAMASUBRAMANIAN W.P.(MD).No.14466 of 2011 and M.P.(MD).No.1 of 2011 Xavier Jayakumar ... Petitioner Vs. 1.The Presiding Officer, Special Tribunal for Motor Accident Claims, Tiruchirappalli. 2.R.Nagarajan 3.M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MUTT Street, 1st Floor, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. ... Respondents Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, calling for the records relating to I.A.No.1737 of 2011 and in I.A.No.1738 of 2011 and in I.A.No.1739 of 2011 in MCOP No.330 of 2008 on the file of the first respondent and quash the order passed on 29.11.2011 by the first respondent in the notice memo and in those interim applications. For Petitioner : M/s.U.Nirmalarani For Respondents : No Appearance O R D E R The petitioner has come up against an order passed by the Tribunal on a memo filed by the petitioner seeking to accept the notice given to the other side. 2. Heard Ms.U.Nirmalarani, learned counsel for the petitioner. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 3. The petitioner is the claimant in MCOP No.330 of 2008 on the file of the III Additional Sub Court, Tiruchirappalli. During the course of trial, the petitioner filed 3 applications in I.A.Nos.1737, 1738 and 1739 of 2011, praying (i) for reception of additional document (ii) for recalling the witness and (iii) for reopening the evidence. Notice was ordered in these applications and the petitioner served notice on the counsel for the third respondent. 4. On the ground that a single notice was served on the counsel in respect of 3 applications, the Tribunal has refused to accept the notice. This is despite the counsel for the Insurance Company, accepting notice and asking for time to file a counter. 5. The reasoning given by the Tribunal is unacceptable. Once a party is represented by a counsel, there is no bar for serving a single notice in respect of all the applications along with copies of all the applications. Therefore, the writ petition is allowed, impugned order is set aside and the Tribunal is directed to proceed with the enquiry in the applications, after giving opportunity to the counsel for the Insurance Company to file counter and contest the applications. No costs. Sd/- Assistant Registrar (T&P) /True Copy/ Sub Assistant Registrar To 1. The Presiding Officer, Special Tribunal for Motor Accident Claims, Tiruchirappalli. 2. M/s.United India Insurance Co. Ltd., MUTT Street, 1st Floor, Kumbakonam, Thanjavur District. +1 CC to M/S.U.Nirmala Rani, Advocate (SR.No.44419) W.P.(MD) 14466 of 2011 19.12.2011 Svn NSV/20.12.11/2P/4C https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/