New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Om Prakash and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- madhya pradesh uchcha nyayalaya (khand nyaypeeth ko appeal) adhiniyam (14 of 2006)section 2 & m.p. general clauses act, 1957, section 12: [a.k. patnaik, cj, s.s. jha & a.m. sapre, jj] appeal to division bench against judgment of single judge - application for restoration/revival of letters patent appeal under clause 10 - held, the legal effect of the 1981 adhiniyam was that with effect from 1st july 1981, all appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished except appeals which were pending before high court on date immediately preceding date of commencement of 1981 adhiniyam on 1st july 1981. it will be clear from sub-section 92) of section 1 of the 2005 adhiniyam that the 2005 adhiniyam was to come into force with retrospective effect from first day of july, 1981 i.e., with effect from the date from which the appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent were abolished by the 1981 adhiniyam. it will be further clear from section 2 of the 2005 adhiniyam that under the 2005 adhiniyam, appeal was provided for only from a judgment and order passed by a single judge in exercise of original jurisdiction under article 226 of the constitution of india to a division bench comprising of two judges of the high court and no appeal was provided for from the judgment and order passed by a single judge of high court in exercise of any other jurisdiction of the high court. it will also be clear from section 4 of the 2005 adhiniyam that sub-section (1) of section 4 repealed the 1981 adhiniyam. therefore by the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam by section 4(1) of 2005 adhiniyam, appeals under clause 10 of the letters patent against judgment and decree passed by the single judge in exercise of its jurisdiction under section 96 of the code of civil procedure would not be revived as 2005 adhiniyam does not provide for any such revival. a reading of section 12 of the m.p. general clauses act, 1957, would show that the legislature must expressly state that the repealed act is either wholly or partially revived. where an act is passed repealing a repealing enactment, it shall not be considered as reviving any enactment previously repealed unless words are added reviving that enactment. in the absence of any express or implicit provision in the 2005 adhiniyam providing for appeal from a judgment, decree or order passed by single judge under section 96 of c.p.c., to a division bench, by virtue of the repeal of the 1981 adhiniyam, appeal under clause 10 of the letters patent from a judgment and decree passed by single judge in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under section 96 of c.p.c., are not revived.s.k. dubey, j.1. counsel heard.2. in a motor accident there were three deaths. the legal representatives of the deceased persons filed a joint claim petition claiming compensation. the claims tribunal recorded common evidence, as the issue of rashness and negligence was common, but thereafter, vide order dated 29.9.1987, directed the legal representatives of each of the deceased persons to file a separate claim so that the award, so far as it relates to the compensation, be passed separately.3. learned counsel for the insurance company submitted that the tribunal acted illegally and without jurisdiction giving an opportunity to the claimants to file separate petitions. the joint petition is not maintainable and now the separate claim petitions have become barred by time, but because of the order of the tribunal the same shall be treated within limitation. it was also pointed out that prior to this order the claimants, when the matter came before this court earlier, stated before the court that separate claims have already been filed, but in fact no such separate petitions were filed. before the claims tribunal, counsel appealing for the claimants stated that the claim petitions were filed and were given to the reader of the court, but the said petitions are misplaced and are not traceable. in such circumstances, the tribunal directed the claimants to file separate petitions. it is this order which is under challenge in revision.4. in the opinion of this court, no interference is called for in the revision, as no injustice is caused to the petitioner company. on the other hand, it is just to facilitate the tribunal to pass separate awards in respect of the claim of compensation relating to each of the deceased persons. accordingly, this revision has no merit and is dismissed with no order as to costs.5. record of the tribunal be sent back immediately. as the claims are pending since 1984, the claims tribunal is directed to pronounce the award after hearing parties in accordance with law within a period of two months from the next date, which is fixed as 7th april, 1994. parties to appear on that date before the claims tribunal.