Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha and anr. Vs. Shalini Jha and anr.

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha and anr. vs Shalini Jha and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Jharkhand Decided Jan 08, 2004

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/517035

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/517035
Court: Jharkhand High Court
Judge: P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. and; Tapen Sen, J.
Decided On: Jan 08, 2004
Case Number: I.A. No. 2707 of 2003 (in L.P.A. No. 720 of 2003)
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A.No.59/1988] Section 166; [A.K. Patnaik, CJ, A.K. Gohil & S. Samvatsar, JJ] Application for compensation for personal injury Death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons Held, Claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. Claim will not survive to ...

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha and anr.

Advocate Rajiv Ranjan, Adv.

Respondent

Shalini Jha and anr.

Advocate V.P. Singh, Sr. Adv.,; A.K. Sinha and; Sat Prakash,

Legal References

Reported In: [2004(2)JCR605(Jhr)]

Excerpt

- motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a.no.59/1988] section 166; [a.k. patnaik, cj, a.k. gohil & s. samvatsar, jj] application for compensation for personal injury death of injured claimant subsequently for some other reasons held, claim for personal injury will abate on the death of claimant. claim will not survive to his legal representative except as regards claim for pecuniary loss to estate of claimant. - 3. in the circumstances, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay. 6. after having heard the parties at length, we are not satisfied that any interference is warranted......represented by a counsel but that was declined. that order became final. the family court took the view in the subsequent application that in the circumstances and in view of the earlier order not permitting the husband to engage a counsel, it would be proper to permit the father of the first appellant to act as the agent of the appellant/husband before the family court. the learned single judge took note of the pleadings in the case and the fact that the father would also be a material witness in this case and in that situation, the order of the family court could not be sustained. it was thus that the order of the family court was interfered with.6. after having heard the parties at length, we are not satisfied that any interference is warranted. it is also brought to our notice by mr. v.p. singh, learned counsel for the wife that on the application made by the husband, the matrimonial suit has been fixed for day to day trial and conclusion commencing from 22.2.2004. of course, this part of the submission of mr. v.p. singh is not accepted by mr. rajiv ranjan, counsel for the husband, but for the moment, we are inclined to accept the submission of mr. v.p. singh. we think it desirable to direct the principal judge, family court, ranchi to try on a day to day basis, the dispute and decide finally the title (matrimonial) suit no. 13 of 2000 one way or the other so that the husband would not be prejudiced or forced to stay away for a considerably long period or at frequent intervals from his job. mr. v.p. singh assures us that the wife will cooperate in the matter for final disposal of the dispute. it will be in the interests of the husband to cooperate with an early disposal of the dispute.7. the appeal is thus disposed of with the above directions. appeal disposed of.

Full Judgment

ORDER

1. Heard both sides.

2. This is an application for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. It is submitted that the delay was really in curing the defects and not in filing the appeal itself.

3. In the circumstances, we are satisfied that sufficient cause has been made out for condoning the delay.

4. Hence, the petition is allowed.

5. The learned Judge, in the writ petition filed by the wife, interfered with the order of the Family Court permitting the father of the husband to act as his agent in the proceedings before the Family Court. It appears that earlier, the husband had sought permission to have himself represented by a counsel but that was declined. That order became final. The Family Court took the view in the subsequent application that in the circumstances and in view of the earlier order not permitting the husband to engage a counsel, it would be proper to permit the father of the first appellant to act as the agent of the appellant/husband before the Family Court. The learned Single Judge took note of the pleadings in the case and the fact that the father would also be a material witness in this case and in that situation, the order of the Family Court could not be sustained. It was thus that the order of the Family Court was interfered with.

6. After having heard the parties at length, we are not satisfied that any interference is warranted. It is also brought to our notice by Mr. V.P. Singh, learned counsel for the wife that on the application made by the husband, the matrimonial suit has been fixed for day to day trial and conclusion commencing from 22.2.2004. Of course, this part of the submission of Mr. V.P. Singh is not accepted by Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, counsel for the husband, but for the moment, we are inclined to accept the submission of Mr. V.P. Singh. We think it desirable to direct the Principal Judge, Family Court, Ranchi to try on a day to day basis, the dispute and decide finally the Title (Matrimonial) Suit No. 13 of 2000 one way or the other so that the husband would not be prejudiced or forced to stay away for a considerably long period or at frequent intervals from his job. Mr. V.P. Singh assures us that the wife will cooperate in the matter for final disposal of the dispute. It will be in the interests of the husband to cooperate with an early disposal of the dispute.

7. The appeal is thus disposed of with the above directions. Appeal disposed of.

Same Court & Year Jharkhand · 2004 Same Parties Dr. Sanjay Kumar Jha and anr. vs Shalini Jha and anr. Same Subject Family Same Judge P.K. Balasubramanyan, C.J. and; Tapen Sen, J.

Family