L.N. Mittal - (1.) CM No. 11100.CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for. CR No. 2602 of 2012 Respondents no. 1 and 2 before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Hoshiarpur (in short, the Tribunal) have filed this revision petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.5.2010, Annexure P/2 passed by the Tribunal thereby striking off defence of the petitioners herein for non-filing of written statement. Order dated 11.4.2012, Annexure P/6 passed by the Tribunal thereby dismissing application of petitioners herein for permission to file the written statement is also under challenge in this revision petition. On oral prayer of counsel for the petitioners, the revision petition is treated to have been filed under Article 227 instead of Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE petitioners herein appeared through their counsel before the Tribunal on 29.5.2008 but did not file written statement till 14.5.2010 i.e. for almost two years. Consequently, the Tribunal was left with no option but to strike off the defence of the petitioners herein. Consequently, the impugned order Annexure P/2 does not suffer from any infirmity much less perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error. Counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that they had earlier engaged Mr. SS Saini, Advocate as their counsel who had been giving evasive reply to the petitioners about the proceedings of the case. Ultimately, they engaged another Advocate Mr. PS Nayyar who apprised them about the proceedings. However, counsel for the petitioners fairly stated that no action has been initiated by the petitioners herein against Mr. SS Saini, Advocate for his alleged lapse. Consequently, the contention that written statement could not be filed due to lapse of Mr. Saini, Advocate cannot be accepted. If it had been so, the petitioners would have initiated action against Mr. Saini for his alleged lapse. Moreover, the petitioners should have been vigilant and they should have filed written statement within reasonable time.
(3.) IN addition to the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is also barred by delay and latches as it has been filed on 30.4.2012 i.e. almost two years after the passing of order Annexure P/2. Explanation for the said delay regarding alleged lapse of Mr. Saini cannot be accepted for the reasons noticed hereinbefore. Since defence of respondents no. 1 and 2 had been struck off vide order Annexure P/2, they were rightly not permitted to file written statement vide order dated 11.4.2012 Annexure P/6. The said order, therefore, also does not suffer from perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error so as to call for interference by this Court in exercise of power of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution of INdia. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in this revision petition which is accordingly dismissed in limine.;