Skip to content


Himachal Road Transport Corporation Vs. Smt. Gurdev Kaur and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberF.A.O. No. 40 of 1983
Judge
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Order 41, Rule 1(3)
AppellantHimachal Road Transport Corporation
RespondentSmt. Gurdev Kaur and ors.
Advocates: D.K. Khanna, Adv.
Excerpt:
- .....11th may, 1983.5. mr. s.s. mittal accepts notice on behalf of the claimants-respondents. so notice be issued to driver-respondent. mr. mittal states that the claimants have also filed appeals for enhancement of the compensation and since they arise out of the same accident, they may be heard together. let those appeals be heard along with the present appeal. the numbers of the appeals given by mr. mittal are faos nos. 11, 15, 13, 10, 17, 18, 14 and 20 of 1983.6. mr. khanna informs me that some other appeals arising out of the same accident should be heard along with the present appeals. numbers of the appeals given by mr. khanna are faos nos. 25, 27, and 29 of 1982. let those appeals be alsco heard along with the present appeal.
Judgment:

V.D. Misra, C.J.

1. The appellant has not deposited the amount in question. Mr. Khanna states that the amount was not deposited because directions were not given by this Court in terms of Order 41 (1) (3), Civil P. C.

2. It appears to me that there is a misunderstanding about the ambit of sub-rule (3). This sub-rule finds a place in Rule 1 which relates to the form of appeal and what is to accompany the memorandum of appeal. In other words the appellant is required to comply with the full provisions of Rule 1 before there can be said to be proper appeal before the appellate court. Sub-rule (3), in my opinion, requires the appellant to deposit the money in question before or at least along with the filing of the appeal. It is only when the money has not been so deposited that permission can be had from the court to deposit the money within the time allowed by the court or to furnish the security as the court may think proper. I do except the appellant, which is a public undertaking in this socialistic welfare State, to pay their dues promiply in the cases of motor accidents and not to delay payments under various pretexts. It to stated by Mr. Khanna that if this is the ambit of Sub-rule (3), then the very purpose of filing the appeal is frustrated. I am afraid, it is not so. Under Sub-rule (2) of Order 45 the trial court itself can stay the execution of the decree for sufficient reason. In these circumstances I would expect the appellant that they would deposit the amount in question in the cases arising out of motor accidents before coming to this Court in appeal since the trial Court can take care of the interests of the appellant in respect of the payment of the amount to the claimants. I hope that there will be no further misunderstanding by the appellant in future.

3. The appellant is directed to deposit the amount in question within one month from today.

4. The matter to be listed for admission on 11th May, 1983.

5. Mr. S.S. Mittal accepts notice on behalf of the claimants-respondents. So notice be issued to driver-respondent. Mr. Mittal states that the claimants have also filed appeals for enhancement of the compensation and since they arise out of the same accident, they may be heard together. Let those appeals be heard along with the present appeal. The numbers of the appeals given by Mr. Mittal are FAOs Nos. 11, 15, 13, 10, 17, 18, 14 and 20 of 1983.

6. Mr. Khanna informs me that some other appeals arising out of the same accident should be heard along with the present appeals. Numbers of the appeals given by Mr. Khanna are FAOs Nos. 25, 27, and 29 of 1982. Let those appeals be alsco heard along with the present appeal.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //