JUDGMENT M. Katju and R.S. Tripathi, JJ.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal for setting aside the order dated 23.9.2003 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Special Judge, S.C./S.T. Act) Basti in Misc. Case No. 29 of 2001 rejecting the application No. 3Ka moved for setting aside the judgment and award dated 31.8.2001 passed in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 63 of 1990.
2. The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 63 of 1990, the appellant was one of the opposite parties and he absented on 24.8.2001, the date which was fixed for hearing of the above claim petition. An order was passed to proceed ex parte against the appellant and ultimately on 31.8.2001 the award was given against the appellant ex parte. In this application for restoration the appellant pleaded that he had not absented deliberately on the date of hearing of the above petition. He contended that he had been ill from 19.8.2001 to 29.9.2001 and therefore, he could not appear before the Tribunal. He prayed for setting aside the judgment and order dated 31.8.2001 restoring the Claim Petition and giving him opportunity to contest the case.
3. The above application of the appellant for restoration was opposed before the Tribunal by the opposite parties who denied the contention of the appellant about his illness from 19.8.2001 to 29.9.2001. According to them, the appellant was deliberately delaying the disposal of the claim petition and had absented on an earlier occasion also resulting in an earlier ex parte award which was set aside on an application moved on behalf of the appellant.
4. The Tribunal after hearing the parties passed the impugned order. Feeling aggrieved against this order, this appeal has been preferred.
5. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties at length and have also gone through the record.
6. In the instant case, the Tribunal has observed that on the date fixed viz., 24.8.2001, when the appellant was absent, the case was ordered to proceed ex parte against him and on that very date after the orders were passed against the appellant to proceed ex parte, a n application 72C was moved for setting aside the ex parte, order passed against the appellant and permission was sought to cross-examine the witnesses. On this application, the Tribunal directed the appellant to bring the entire evidence on the next date and only then his request for setting aside the ex parte order and permission to cross-examine the witnesses would be considered. The next date 28.8.2001 was fixed but on that date the appellant failed to turn up. Consequently, the application No. 72C was rejected and the case was disposed of ex parte.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued before this Court that the appellant has given sufficient explanation for his absence on the date 24.8.2001 on account of his illness and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an error in passing the ex parte award against the appellant. His argument is that the appellant having submitted a medical certificate for his illness from 19.8.2001 to 29.9,2001 had sufficiently explained his absence on the date when the orders to proceed ex parte were passed against him. Hence it was contended that the impugned order is liable to be set aside.
8. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has opposed this prayer and has submitted that there is no sufficient explanation for the absence of the appellant and therefore, the Tribunal has committed no error in passing the impugned order.
9. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant was that the appellant was ill from 19.8.2001 to 29.9.2001. If this was correct at least this fact should have been mentioned in the application 72C which was moved on his behalf on 24.8.2001. Since this fact has not been stated in application No. 72C in our opinion the learned Tribunal has rightly drawn the conclusion that the ground of illness has not been substantiated by the appellant to prove his absence on the date 24.8.2001 when the order to proceed ex parte was passed. Moreover, if the appellant was really ill, the material with regard to his treatment should have been brought before the Tribunal. In absence thereof, we fully agree with the finding recorded by the Tribunal. The filing of a medical certificate without any supporting evidence for the illness of the appellant, is of no help to him. It has not even been mentioned by the learned counsel what was the illness stated in the medical certificate. The appellant had also been found absent on an earlier occasion and the earlier ex parte award was set aside on the application of the appellant himself. The Court cannot keep on entertaining restoration applications after restoration applications.
10. In the light of this discussion, this appeal has no force and it is accordingly dismissed.
11. Before parting with this case we may mention that a practice has been developed by some lawyers in the subordinate courts who wish to delay the proceedings of allowing ex parte orders to be passed, under the impression that restoration will invariably be done. This is in fact dilatory tactics, which has assumed large proportions. The time has come that this notorious practice be firmly stopped.
12. It must be understood that restoration is in the discretion of the Court, and the Court is not bound to grant restoration, particularly when the case has been decided on merits (even though by ex parte order). We are informed that some lawyers in the District Court have specialised in delaying court proceedings. Some times for getting an adjournment they even manage to get a resolution for strike passed by the local Bar Association on some pretext. All this must be stopped because the public is fed up of the delay in Court proceedings. The people have a right to get speedy justice, and some lawyers by denying the public this right have put the entire judiciary to disrepute.
13. We, therefore, direct all the District Judges that they must advise the Judges in their district that in future adjournments shall not be granted except on very compelling grounds. In particular strike by lawyers will not be a ground for adjournment, and the Judges in the subordinate judiciary must pass order on merit in the cases fixed before them even if the lawyers have gone on strike.
14. Let the Registrar General of this Court send copy of this judgment to all the District Judges and President/Secretary, District Bar Association in the State forthwith and the District Judges must circulate copy of this order to all the Judges in their Court. The District Judge shall also personally tell every Judge in the district that adjournment must not be granted except on very compelling grounds, and certainly not on the ground that lawyers are on strike. Failure to comply with this order may invite disciplinary action against the Judge concerned.