Allahabad High Court
CHANDRA PAL SINGHversusSMT. BHONA DEVI AND 9 OTHERS
- Decided
- Bench
- ABDUL SHAHID
Holding
The appeal is dismissed; the Tribunal’s order rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is upheld.
Summary
The appellant, Chandra Pal Singh, appealed a 2009 award of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal and a 2025 order rejecting his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. He had filed the application after a delay of 6,141 days, seeking condonation of the delay and relief from a recovery certificate issued against him. The Tribunal noted that the appellant had not deposited the 50 % amount ordered on 30 April 2025 and therefore dismissed the application. The High Court examined whether the Tribunal’s rejection was illegal or irregular, focusing on the statutory time‑limit and the appellant’s non‑compliance with the earlier order. Finding no illegality, the Court upheld the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The judgment reaffirmed the strict application of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC regarding delayed applications.
Issues considered
- Whether an application filed after a delay of 6,141 days can be condoned under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application on the ground of non‑deposit of the 50 % amount.
- Whether the recovery certificate issued against the appellant is valid.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 9 Rule 13
Subjects
- Motor Accident Claims Tribunal
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- delay in filing
- recovery certificate
- appeal
Judgment
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER DEFECTIVE No. - 555 of 2026
Chandra Pal Singh
.....Appellant(s)
Versus
Smt. Bhona Devi And 9 Others
.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Appellant(s) : M. Asif, Shamim Uddin Khan
Counsel for Respondent(s) :
Court No. - 39
HON'BLE ABDUL SHAHID, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The present appeal has been preferred against the award dated 3.3.2009, passed by
the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal/Additional District Judge, Gorakhpur, Court
No.4 in Claim Petition No. 566 of 2000 (Smt. Bhona Devi and others Vs. Vishambhar
Nath and others) as well as order dated 18.8.2025, passed in Misc. Case No. 2072 of
2015, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC of the appellant has been
rejected.
3. The said claim petition was allowed on 3.3.2009. An application under Order 9
Rule 13 CPC has been filed by the appellant/owner with a delay of 6141 days.
Learned Tribunal has rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC by order
dated 18.8.2025 which is as follows:
"Case called out. The applicant/opposite party no.4, Chandrapal is absent. Till date, he
has not deposited 50% amount in compliance of order dated 30.4.2025. Hence, the
application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is hereby dismissed. The recovery certificate
has further been directed to be issued against the opposite party no.4/appellant."
4. In view thereof, there is neither any illegality nor irregularity in the impugned order.
The present appeal is liable to be dismissed and it is dismissed, accordingly.
April 22, 2026
sfa/
(Abdul Shahid,J.)
Digitally signed by :-
SYED FAHEEM AHMAD
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Checking your session…