Read Order: Pirthi Singh and Another v. Pushpinder Kaur and Others 

LE Correspondent

Chandigarh, April 12, 2022: While dealing with a revision petition wherein the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda issued bailable warrants against the petitioners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the impugned order considering the fact that the petitioners were never served and the Tribunal passed the impugned order issuing bailable warrants against the petitioners without ascertaining whether the petitioners had been served.

The present revision under Article 227 of the Constitution of India was filed before the Bench of Justice Alka Sarin for setting aside the order of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bathinda ( Tribunal) by which bailable warrants against the petitioners were issued on an application filed by the respondents under Order 21 Rule 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 without serving the petitioners herein. 

The Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioners were not served in the present case. Meanwhile, an application was filed by the respondents under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC.  In the said application, on October 29, 2020 notice was issued for December 17, 2020.

On December 17, 2020, without ascertaining whether service was complete, bailable warrants were issued against the petitioners (impugned order). The counsel further contended that the petitioners were never served in the execution petition as well as in the application under Order 21 Rule 37 CPC and were not granted an opportunity to file their replies. The counsel prayed for the setting aside of the impugned order and for the grant of an opportunity to file their replies. 

The Court observed at the very outset that the counsel for the respondent was not in a position to deny the factual averments made by the counsel for the petitioners. The Counsel, however, stated that since the petitioners were now aware of the proceedings and filed the present petition, he asked for issuance of directions to them to appear before the Executing Court and file their replies. 

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioners were never served and the Tribunal passed the impugned order issuing bailable warrants against the petitioners without ascertaining whether the petitioners were served, the Court considered it appropriate to set aside the impugned order. 

The Court directed the petitioners to appear before the Executing Court and file their replies/objections on the next date of hearing fixed before the Executing Court. 

0 CommentsClose Comments

Leave a comment