THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P. No. 4439 of 2010 Dated. 26–11-2010 Between: Chodavarapu Rambabu …Petitioner Vs. Yerranganti Sathi Raju and othrs. …Respondents THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM C.R.P.No. 4439 of 2010 ORAL ORDER: Heard the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. There is no representation on behalf of the sole respondent – The National Insurance Company Limited though the name of Sri K. Sitaram, learned counsel is reflected in the cause list. This revision under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order of the learned I-Additional District Judge, East Godavari, Rajahmundry dated 18-03- 2010 rejecting I.A.No. 575 of 2010 in O.P.No. 598 of 2007. The revision petitioner sustained injuries in a motor accident and filed O.P.No. 598 of 2007 against the respondent herein claiming compensation under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’). The petitioner’s side evidence was closed on 15- 02-2010. Thereafter the revision petitioner filed I.A.No. 575 of 2010 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) to reopen the trial and to issue summons for production of the medical record and to examine the doctor. The said application was rejected on 09-03-2010 recording the following reasons: This petition is filed under Section 151 CPC to reopen the petitioner’s side evidence, which was closed on 15-02-2010. In this case at the request of the petitioner, Sri M.J. Prakash, Advocate was appointed as Commissioner to record the evidence of Medical Officer on 03-09-2009 and the O.P. was posted to 24-09-2009 for examination of the doctor and return of warrant, but the petitioner did not take any steps to examine the doctor. The main O.P. underwent 8 adjournments i.e., from 3.9.2009 to 24.9.2009, from 24.9.2009 to 15.10.2009, from 15.10.2009 to 10.11.2009, from 10.11.2009 to 30.11.2009, from 30.11.2009 to 23.12.2009, from 23.12.2009 to 5.1.2010, from 5.1.2010 to 21.2.2010, from 21.2.2010 to 2.2.2010. Till 5.1.2010, the petitioner did not take steps even to send for the medical record. Only on 5.1.2010, he filed the petition to send for the medical record and the same was allowed. He is expected to pay batta within three days, but he did not pay any batta. On verification on 15.2.2010 advocate commissioner represented that the petitioner did not pay commissioner fee for examination of doctor, though the petition to send for the record was allowed, no batta was paid. Therefore, the petitioner’s side evidence was closed and the commissioner was directed to return the warrant. Accordingly, the warrant was returned. Thereafter the petitioner sought re-consideration of the earlier order dated 09-03-2010. That application by the order dated 18-03-2010 was rejected reiterating the reasons recorded in the earlier order dated 09-03-2010. This revision is directed against the order dated 18-03-2010 declining to recall the order dated 09-03-2010 in I.A.No. 575 of 2010 and to reconsider grant of the relief as sought in I.A.No. 575 of 2010. Having regard to the continuous negligence in prosecuting O.P.No. 598 of 2007 as reflected by the order of the Court below dated 09-03-2010, reiterated in the order impugned dated 18-03-2010, no case is normally made for grant of relief. The learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court below Sri Jakkamsetti Mahesh has filed an affidavit dated 25-11-2010 into this Court stating that on account of his ill- health viz., he was suffering from severe sciatica pain and was restricted to bed for over one and half years, there has been considerable inefficiency in the prosecution of O.P.598 of 2007 and that he would personally compensate the revision petitioner (accident victim) for his (counsel’s) negligence in conducting and prosecuting O.P.No. 598 of 2007 diligently by paying Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) to the petitioner from out of his own pocket. The learned counsel Sri Jakkamsetti Mahesh has undertaken in this affidavit not to repeat the negligent conduct and to diligently pursue the trial of the O.P. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein Sri Chandra Sekhar Ilapakurti also undertakes that the amount of Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees Two thousand only) as promised (by the learned counsel in the Court below Sri J. Mahesh) would be paid to the revision petitioner – Chodavarapu Rambabu; and that the case of the revision petitioner would be diligently pursued henceforth. Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel has also urged that having regard to the fact that the O.P. constitutes an application by an injured citizen seeking compensation under the provisions of the Act in an accident claim, due latitude be allowed to enable prosecution of O.P. No. 598 of 2007, on merits. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the undertaking furnished by Sri J. Mahesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the Court below as reiterated by Sri Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the revision petitioner herein, this Court considers it appropriate to allow the revision petition, as under. The docket order dated 18-03-2010 and the order dated 09-03-2010 in I.A.No. 575 of 2010 in O.P.No. 598 of 2007 on the file of the learned I-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajamundry are set aside and I.A.No. 575 of 2010 is allowed on condition that Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) shall be paid by way of demand draft drawn on a nationalized bank to the revision petitioner-- Chodavarapu Rambabu s/o China Satyanarayana, r/o 7- 18, Cheruvugattu, Venturu village, Rayavaram Mandal, East GodavariDistrict and the demand draft shall be handover to the said Chodavarapu Rambabu within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. On receipt of such instrument Ch. Rambabu shall pass an acknowledgement in token of having received the demand draft and that acknowledgement shall be filed into the Court of the learned I-Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Sri J. Mahesh, learned counsel for the revision petitioner in the Court below shall also pay the batta for summoning the medical record and to the Court Commissioner towards examining the doctor and shall deposit the Commissioner fee, which shall be determined and within the time directed by the Court below. In default of any of the conditions above, the revision stands dismissed and the order dated 18-03-2010 rejecting I.A.No. 575 of 2010 shall stand confirmed. The revision petition is accordingly disposed of. __________________________ JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM Dated: 26-11-2010 Pvks/*