Pritam Kaur Vs. State and ors.

.....1950 - article 226--writ petition--maintainability of--petitioner sought direction for show cause about non-arrest of respondent no. 4--but respondent no. 4 himself contended that petitioner was an imposter and writ petition was filed on false facts--since the question arises that who was petitioner--direction issued to respondent no. 4 to appear before court below. - motor vehicles act, 1988 [c.a. no. 59/1988]section 173(1) proviso; [d. biswas, amitava roy & i.a.ansari, jj] appeal without statutory deposit but within limitation/or extended period of limitation maintainability - held, if the provision of a statute speaks of entertainment of appeal, it denotes that the appeal cannot be admitted to consideration unless other requirements are complied with. the provision of sub-section (1) of section 173 permits filing of an appeal against an award within 90 days with a rider in the first proviso that such appeal filed cannot be entertained unless the statutory deposit is made. the period of limitation is applicable only to the filing of the appeal and not to the deposit to be made. it, therefore, appears that an appeal filed under section 173 cannot be entertained i.e. cannot be admitted for consideration unless the statutory deposit is made and for this purpose the court has the discretion either to grant time to make the deposit or not. no formal order condoning the delay is necessary, an order of adjournment would suffice. the provisions of limitation embodied in the substantive provision of the sub-section (1) of section 173 of the act does not extend to the provision relating to the deposit of statutory amount as embodies in the first proviso. therefore an appeal filed within the period of limitation or within the extended period of limitation, cannot be admitted for hearing on merit unless the statutory deposit is made either with the memo of appeal or on such date as may be permitted by the court. no specific order condoning any delay for the purpose..........the respondent no. 4 also intervened in this application and filed an application under article 226 claiming therein that she is an actual widow of late jagtar singh and actually the petitioner is an imposter and has instituted this writ application on false, incorrect and misleading facts. it is further alleged that paramjit kaur ran away from the house of chanchal singh some time in the year 1980 and since then paramjit kaur wife of awtar singh has absolutely no connection with either chanchal singh or his family members.3. today, one counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondent-state stating therein that in order to arrest paramjit kaur, issuance of process under section 82/83, cr.p.c was also taken and all actions for arresting the accused in the said case have been made.4. heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of both sides and also the learned app.5. learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that actually the respondent no. 4 impersonated the petitioner's name and had obtained bail by committing forgery and cheating and she is not appearing in the court below for facing trial even though the court below is taking coercive steps against her.6. on the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the intervenor submitted that actually the intervenor is the real wife of jagtar singh, which will be evident from the documents placed in the case.7. from going through and having heard the arguments from both the sides, it appears that the question relates to the fact as to who is the actual pritam kaur and it is a matter of fact, which will be decided by the trial court itself considering the evidence collected from both sides and hearing both sides.8. in this view of the matter, respondent is directed to appear in the court below and face trial so that the matter will be decided and set at in accordance with law.9. with this observation, this application disposed of.