R.H. Zaidi, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner, learned standing counsel and perused the record. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner challenges the validity of the order dated 22.11.2000 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar, has restored the case on the condition that the petitioner shall deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/ - in the Court.
(2.) IT appears that the contesting respondents 2 to 5 filed the claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanpur Nagar. As the case was not contested by the petitioner, the case proceeded ex -parte and ultimately, the award was given in favour of the contesting respondents by judgment and order dated 15.2.1997. The petitioner thereafter filed an application for setting aside the ex -parte award. The application filed by the petitioner was allowed conditionally. The petitioner was directed to deposit the amount of Rs. 50,000/ - in the Court and the case was restored to its original number. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Claims Tribunal acted illegally in imposing cost while restoring the case. Therefore, the judgment and order passed by the Tribunal was liable to be set aside.
(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.;