AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
No AI summary yet
Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.
Judgment
12 paragraphs · 240 wordsSanjay K. Agrawal, J
The petitioners (owner and driver of the vehicle) have filed an application under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. stating that the actual owner and
driver have not been impleaded as party non-applicant in the claim petition which has been rejected by the trial Court against which this writ petition
has been filed.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order is unsustainable and bad in law and is liable to be set aside.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
The trial Court has rejected the application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 of the C.P.C. finding no merit and more particularly the application was filed
after a delay of four years as the incident happened on 11.06.2014 and the claim petition is pending consideration since March, 2016. As such,
sufficient and valid reasons have been assigned by the trial Court while rejecting the said application in which I do not find any illegality.
Accordingly, the writ petition deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. However, petitioners would be at liberty to prove relevant documents in
support of their case that they are not the actual owner and driver of the offending vehicle. The claims Tribunal is directed to conclude the trial within
45 days from the date of receipt of this order. A copy of this order be sent to the Claims Tribunal. No cost(s).