Himachal Pradesh High Court
CMPMO/482/2017 on 29 December 2017
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
CMPMO No.: 482 of 2017
Date of Decision: 29.12.2017 ______________________________________________________________________ Oriental Insurance Company Ltd.
…..Petitioner.
Vs.
Pooja Rana and others
…..Respondents.
Coram:
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioner: Dr. Lalit K. Sharma, Advocate.
For the respondent: Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Respondent No. 3 ex parte.
Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocate, for respondent No. 4.
Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral):
Mr. Dheeraj K. Vashisht and Mr. Ashwani Kaundal, Advocates have put in appearance on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, respectively.
2. By way of this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has laid challenge to order, dated 19.04.2017, passed by the Court of learned Commissioner under the Employees Compensation Act-Cum-Senior Civil Judge, Una, in an Application bearing registration No. 510/15, whereby application filed by Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? High Court of H.P. 2017:HHC:8803 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 00:08:13 :::CIS
the applicant therein for condonation of delay in filing the application under the Employees Compensations Act stood allowed by the learned Court below, without even issuance of any notice to the present petitioner.
3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents do not dispute the fact that the said application stood decided without issuance of notice to the present petitioner. In this view of the matter, as the petitioner was condemned unheard, as far as adjudication of application so filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is concerned, impugned order, prima facie, is not sustainable and is accordingly quashed and set aside. Matter is further remanded back to the learned Court below with the direction to decide the application so filed before it under Section 5 of the Limitation Act by the applicant(s) therein after affording an opportunity of filing reply, as also of being heard to the present petitioner and all other respondents before it.
With the aforesaid directions, the petition stands disposed of, so also miscellaneous application(s), if any. No order as to costs.
Copy dasti.
(Ajay Mohan Goel)
Judge December 29, 2017 (bhupender) High Court of H.P. 2017:HHC:8803 ::: Downloaded on - 03/11/2026 00:08:13 :::CIS