Created by Fuzzy Cloud

Allahabad High Court

VISHAL CHADDHAversusSEEMA DEVI AND 7 OTHERS

Decided

Holding

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and revived the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for fresh consideration.

Summary

The petitioner, owner of the offending vehicle, challenged a Motor Accident Claim Tribunal order that rejected his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC on the basis that it was filed beyond 30 days and lacked a date of knowledge. The petitioner argued that he had not been served notice and only obtained a certified copy of the order on 14 August 2025, after which he filed the application. The High Court found the Tribunal's rejection cursory and not addressing the specific contentions regarding service of notice. Consequently, the Court set aside the Tribunal’s order and directed that the application be revived and heard on merits within two months. The petition was allowed.

Issues considered

  • Whether the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal erred in rejecting the petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground of non‑compliance with the 30‑day filing period and absence of date of knowledge.
  • Whether the application should be revived and considered on its merits despite the alleged procedural lapse.

Legislation cited

Subjects

  • Order IX Rule 13
  • Motor Accident Claim Tribunal
  • service of notice
  • revival of application
  • Civil Procedure Code
  • Writ petition
  • Allahabad High Court

Judgment

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                       WRIT - C No. - 34157 of 2025

Vishal Chaddha
                                                           .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

Seema Devi And 7 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ajay Chandragupta, Rakesh Bahadur,
                                 Vikas Srivastava
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : Abhinav Shukla, Tarun Jha

Court No. - 5
                 HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

1. Heard Shri Rakesh Bahadur, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri
Abhinav Shukla, learned counsel for Insurance Company and Shri
Vishwam Dwivedi, holding brief of Shri Tarun Jha, learned counsel
appearing for the claimant-respondents.

2. Challenge in this petition is to an order dated 25.08.2025, whereby
Motor Accident Claim Tribunal, Jalaun at Orai has rejected the
application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. filed by the petitioner, who is
owner of offending vehicle on the ground that the application has not
been filed within 30 days and date of knowledge of the order has not been
indicated.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that detailed statements were
made in the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. to the effect that
there was no service of notice upon the owner and when telephonically he
was informed about the recovery being undertaken by the Amin, he
applied for certified copy through counsel on 12.08.2025 and obtained it
on 14.08.2025 and then the application was filed.

4. In the opinion of the Court, the manner in which the application has
been dealt with by the Tribunal does not appear to be appropriate. It was
expected of the Tribunal to deal with specific contentions raised by the
petitioner in the application, as regards service of notice through
ordinary/registered post and all other aspects which were agitated,
however rejection being quite cursory in nature, without expressing any
                                                                                         WRIC No. 34157 of 2025
                                                                  2


                                    further opinion on the issues involved in the litigation, the Court is
                                    inclined to set aside the order impugned and remit the matter for fresh
                                    consideration under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C.

                                    5. The petition is allowed.

                                    6. The order dated 25.08.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claim
                                    Tribunal, Jalaun at Orai in Motor Accident Claim Petition No. 91 of 2019
                                    (Seema Devi and others vs. Vishal Chaddha and others) is set aside.

                                    7. Application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. stands revived and the
                                    same shall be considered and decided on merits after hearing all parties,
                                    within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order
                                    is filed before it.



                                                                                       (Kshitij Shailendra,J.)
                                    April 23, 2026
                                    Sazia




Digitally signed by :-
SAZIA AQUIL
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad


Continue reading with your account

Sign in to read the full judgment. It’s free.

Sign in to read

Checking your session…

For a signed copy suitable for filing, refer to the court's website.