Skip to content


Kanhayya Pershad Vs. Gopikishen Ram Dayal - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citation

Court

Andhra Pradesh

Decided On

Judge

Reported in

143Ind.Cas.29

Appellant

Kanhayya Pershad

Respondent

Gopikishen Ram Dayal

Excerpt:


.....therefore, the insured and the insurer have no escape but to discharge the said award as directed. undisputedly, in this case as deduced for proved facts, the vehicle in question was not properly maintained by the owner and despite faulty brake system, the claimant had undertaken the hazardous journey to his peril at the behest of and at the instruction of the owner. the owner is therefore, tortfeasor. section 168: [v. gopala gowda & jawad rahim, jj] insurers limit of liability - held, it is well settled that the liability of the insurance company for payment of compensation can be statutory or contractual. is for the insurance company to show that the insurance policy was a statutory policy and not a contractual policy to restrict its liability. that issue was neither raised before the tribunal nor is raised in this appeal requiring decision. thus, if at all the insurer has any valid ground to restrict its liability, it can proceed against the insured but firstly it has to discharge the award as required under section 149 (1) of the act. where the owner/insured has failed to maintain the vehicle as per prescribed safety standards and has caused the claimant to drive the..........when the case is pending. in a case where a judgment has been given ex parte and an application to set it aside is presented the court cannot act under the provisions of section 160, civil procedure code. if it so acts it cannot but encounter the difficulty as is clear from the facts of the present case. by this time that part of the suit has also been adjudicated upon finally by the lower court respect of which the part of the judgment was set aside and hence the defendant is at liberty to pursue various remedies. the present miscellaneous appeal, is against that order whereby the decree has been, allowed, to stand in part. it is urged that the order of the lower court is not correct and the matter that is alleged to be admitted is really in dispute. under the circumstances we deem it proper to grant the application to set aside the ex parte judgment for which sufficient reasons exist and to remand the case to the court of first instance for proper orders on the merits. so the appeal is allowed as directed above.3. the parties to bear their own costs.

Judgment:


1. Arguments were heard from the records it appears that the suit was decreed ex parte and the application was presented to set it aside. The learned Judge of the Original Side allowed the application and made the following order:

The original decree dated 11th Amerdad 1341 Fasli is set aside to the extent of interest allowing the remaining decree to Stand.

2. Against this order the miscellaneous appeal has been filed, before us. There is no doubt that under the law a court has got powers to decree the suit in respect of the matters admitted and to proceed with the suit in respect of the matters dispute. This seems to be the Underlying idea of the original court. But the difficulty is that there is no provision to, allow the farmer decree to stand. When the ex parte judgment is set aside the decree based on that judgment will be deemed to cease to be nullus functo. There is no provision in law to set aside an ex parte order in part. As stated above, ordinarily the ex parte decree will be set aside in to when there are sufficient and proper reasons for doing so and, the defendant will be given opportunity to defend. Vide Section 127, Hyderabad Civil Procedure Code, Act No. III of 1323 Fasli. However, under Section 160, civil Procedure Code, if the defendant admits the claim of the plaintiff in part the court has got powers to pass the order or judgment it deems proper without waiting for the disposal of any other question. But this provision has application only when the Case is pending. In a case where a judgment has been given ex parte and an application to set it aside is presented the court cannot act under the provisions of Section 160, Civil Procedure code. If it so acts it cannot but encounter the difficulty as is clear from the facts of the present case. By this time that part of the suit has also been adjudicated upon finally by the lower Court respect of which the part of the judgment was set aside and hence the defendant is at liberty to pursue various remedies. The present miscellaneous appeal, is against that order whereby the decree has been, allowed, to stand in part. It is urged that the order of the lower Court is not correct and the matter that is alleged to be admitted is really in dispute. Under the circumstances we deem it proper to grant the application to set aside the ex parte judgment for which sufficient reasons exist and to remand the case to the Court of first instance for proper orders on the merits. So the appeal is allowed as directed above.

3. The parties to bear their own costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organize Client Files //