- (1.) The petitioner filed a claim petition before the Railway Claims Tribunal Bench Chandigarh which was dismissed in default. The petitioner filed an application for restoration and in the presence of the counsel for the parties the claim petition was ordered to be restored on 13.2.1991 on payment of Rs. 100/- as costs which were to be paid within 10 days. Admittedly, the costs were not deposited within the stipulated period. On 7.3.1991 the petitioner moved an application for condonation of delay in depositing the costs with a prayer that he be allowed to tender costs and the delay in deposit of the costs be condoned and the case be decided on merits in the interest of justice. The case was ordered to be heard on 22.3.1991. Learned counsel for the petitioner gave an undertaking to supply a copy of the application to the counsel for the Railway and to inform him about the next date of hearing.
(2.) Instead of taking up the application for condonation of delay on 22.3.1991, the same was taken up on 8.3.1991 in the absence of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the Tribunal dismissed the said application with the finding that there was no ground to condone the delay or to allow further time to deposit the costs. The present revision petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner on the plea that the order passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioner on 8.3.1991 was bad in law because no opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner. Moreover, on the application filed on 7.3.1991 the Tribunal had fixed the date of hearing for 22.3.1991 and the case was taken up for arguments prior to that date without informing the counsel for the petitioner. The respondent has put in appearance and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the present petition is being disposed of at the motion stage.
(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and find force in the contention of the counsel for the petitioners. In the application for condonation of delay in deposit of the costs, filed on 7.3.1991, the case was ordered to be adjourned to 22.3.1991 by the Tribunal for disposal of the application. Instead of taking up the application for condonation of delay on 22.3.1991, the Tribunal took up the same on 8.3.1991 and in the absence of the counsel for the parties, dismissed the application. There is patent error which is apparent on the face of the record. The Tribunal should have taken up the application on the adjourned date of hearing, i.e. on 22.3.1991 and not prior thereto in the absence of the counsel for the parties. The impugned order dated 8.3.1991 is set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal with the direction that it should decide the application dated 7.3.1991 afresh after affording the opportunity of hearing to the parties in view of rule audi alteram partem. The parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the Tribunal on February 9, 1993. No costs.;