U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOWversusMANJU GOEL & ORS.

                                        [2009] 4 S.C.R. 1059

    ......___
                                                                                   A
            '                       U.P. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW
                                                 v.
                                       MANJU GOEL & ORS.
                               Civil Appeal Nos. 1821-1822 of 2009
                                         MARCH 24, 2009
                                                                                   B
                      [DR. ARIJ.IT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY,
    ._                                       JJ.]
                ~
                          Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 - Dismissal of
                    appeal by Government Department for non-prosecution -
                    Reason for non-appearance stated to be not being aware of      c
                    transfer of the appeal to new High Court created after re-
                    organisation of State- The Department also denying its liability
                    to discharge the award in view of transfer of liability to the
                    Department concerned of the new State - Held : Since the
                '
/

                    reason for non-appearance was justified and the case involved D
                    important questions of Jaw, appeal liable to be restored.
                         Award passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,
                    against a State Government Department, was challenged
                    in appeal. The appeal was dismissed for non-prosecution.
                                                                             E
                    Application for restoration of the order was rejected.
                    Hence the present appeals.
                ~
                          Appellant contended that it was not able to appear
                    in the matter because the case was transferred to the High
                    Court of new State created after re-organization of the F
                    erstwhile State. Appellant has also denied its liability to
                    discharge the award as the liability for the same shifted
                    to the Department concerned, of the newly created State.
                         Disposing of the appeals, the Court
            1                                                                      G
                            HELD: In view of the factual position highlighted to
                      justify the non-appearance, when the matter was taken
                    . up by the High Court; and since several important
                      questions of law were involved, the matters deserve to
                                                1059                               H
    1060       SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2009] 4 S.C.R.

                                                                            ,,.._
A   be heard on merit. Therefore, restoration of the appeal is          t
    directed. [Paras 3 and 5)

        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal Nos.
    1821-1822 of 2009
B        From the Judgement and Order dated 06.07.2005 of the
    High Court of Uttaranchal at Nainital in Application No. 3650 of
    2005 and Application No. 3651 of 2005 in Appeal From Order                ,._
    No. 981 of 2001.                                                    ~


           Pradeep Misra, for the Appellants.
c
           The Judgement of the Court was delivered by

           DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

           1. Leave granted.
D         2. Challenge in these appeals is to the order passed by a
    Division Bench of the Uttranchal High Court dismissing the
    appeal filed by the appellant. Since the writ appeal was
    dismissed for non prosecution, an application for restoration
    was filed which was rejected by the impugned order.
E
          3. It is to be noted that a Claim Petition was filed before
    the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pauri Garhwal (in short the     ~
    'MACT') by respondents 1 to 5, claiming compensation in
    respect of an accident where one Shri Sudhakar Goel
    (hereinafter referred to as the 'deceased') lost his life on
F
    19.3.1979. The claim made was Rs.11 lakhs. The MACT
    awarded Rs.9, 18,288/- and the appellant was directed to pay
    the same. Against the Award an appeal was preferred before
    the Allahabad High Court which was numbered as Appeal No.335
    of 1984 before the Allahabad High Court. After reorganization                   .,..._
G   of State of Uttar Pradesh, State of Uttranchal was formed. The      '
    appeal in question was transferred to the Uttranchal High Court.
    Being unaware of this transfer none appeared when the
    Uttranchal High Court took up the matter. The appeal was
    dismissed. Coming to know of the dismissal, an application for
H   restoration was filed, which was dismissed by the impugned
             UP. JAL NIGAM, LUCKNOW V. MANJU GOEL & ORS.               1061
                         [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

          order. The stand of the appellant is that it has no liability as the A
          liability of Uttar Pradesh Jal Nigam in respect of the territory
          within the Uttranchal State was transferred to the newly created
          Uttranchal Water Supply and Development Nigam and therefore
          the appellant has no liability to discharge the Award. In any event
          several important questions of law were involved. In the B
          background it is submitted that the restoration application should
          have been allowed.

  4             4. There is no appearance on behalf of the respondents in
          spite of service of notice.
---             5. While issuing notice this Court had indicated that the
                                                                              c
          matter may be remitted for disposal on merits. However,
          direction was given to deposit a SW)l_,of Rs.5,00,000/- with the
          concerned MACT without prejudice to the claims involved. It is
          stated that the deposit has been made. In view of the factual D
      f   position highlighted to justify the non-appearance when the
          matter was taken up by the High Court, we are of the view that
          the matters deserve to be heard on merit. We, therefore, set
          aside the impugned order, direct restoration of F.A.F.O. 335 of
          1984 (old number) 981 of 2001 (new number) titled UP JAL
                                                                           E
          Nivam v. Smt. Manju Goel and others.
                6. Since the matter is pending since long, we request the
      +   High Court to dispose of the matter as early as practicable after
          giving notice to the parties concerned.
                                                                              F
               7. The appeals are disposed of accordingly.

          K.K.T.                                    Appeals disposed of.