V.K.Shukla, J. - (1.) Present writ petition has been filed questioning the validity of order dated 03.04.2010 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, rejecting application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, filed along with Restoration Application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C.
(2.) Brief background of the case, as mentioned in the writ petition, is that the Motor Accident Claim Petition was filed by the claimants Deshraj and Pushpa Devi in respect of accident, which had taken place on 29.05.1999, wherein their two years' aged son had died. On the said claim petition being filed, the petitioners entered appearance through their counsel and thereafter disappeared, as such the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was constrained to pass order on 05.03.2006 to proceed exparte. Thereafter evidence was adduced on behalf of the claimants and award was passed on 23.02.2007. For realising the amount in question, the award was put for execution, and thereafter an application was moved on 09.04.2009 by the petitioners contending therein that the award in question was exparte and the same should be set aside. To the said application objections were filed on 25.03.2010. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal considered the matter and found that the cause furnished in the delay condonation application was not at all sufficient for non appearance, and in this background, the delay condonation application was dismissed and the effect of the same was that the application under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. stood dismissed. At this juncture, present writ petition has been filed.
(3.) Sri Ravindra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, contended with vehemence that in the present case liberal view ought to have been taken, as the sufficiency of cause had been validly explained, as such delay condonation application ought to have been allowed and the matter ought to have been decided on merits.;