IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C. REV. No.82 of 2006 RAJ KISHORE PD.SAHU Versus THE ORIENTAL INSURANCE COMPANY & ORS ------------ 24/ 19.03.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner (owner of the vehicle) as well as learned counsel for opposite party no.1 (Insurance Company). Although notices were sent to all other opposite parties by various processes including newspaper publication but in spite of valid service of notices, they have not appeared. 2.This petition has been filed for review of order dated 23.10.2002 by which a Bench of this court while dismissing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 62 of 1994 directed that if the Insurance Company did not pay the amount of compensation with interest, the amount of compensation with interest awarded by the court shall be paid by the owner of the vehicle. The claim of the petitioner is that the said order was passed behind the back of the petitioner, who is owner of the vehicle, while he was not a party to the Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. The said Miscellaneous Appeal was filed by the Oriental the Insurance Company Limited against the claimants who were respondent nos. 1 to 5 as well as the owner of the vehicle who was respondent no.6, challenging order dated 14.10.1993 by which the learned Additional District Judge I- cum- Claims Tribunal, Siwan allowed Claim Case No. 9 of 1982 and the entire compensation was directed to be paid by the Insurance Company. 4. It transpires that during the pendency of the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal peremptory order dated 31.08.1999 was passed - 2 - by a Bench of this court granting one week time to the appellant (opposite party no.1 of the instant review petition) to take fresh step for appeal notice on the owner of the vehicle who was respondent no.6 in the Miscellaneous Appeal (petitioner of the instant civil review petition) but the appellant of the Miscellaneous Appeal who is opposite party no.1 in the instant case did not comply the said order and the Miscellaneous Appeal was consequently dismissed against the said respondent no.6 namely owner of the vehicle and continued only against respondent nos. 1 to 5 who were the claimants. It is also not in dispute that the said Miscellaneous Appeal was never restored as against the said respondent no.6. 5. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is quite apparent that although owner of the vehicle was impleaded as respondent no.6 in the Miscellaneous Appeal but the said Miscellaneous Appeal stood dismissed against him due to the fault of appellant of the Miscellaneous Appeal and hence when the final order was passed on 23.10.2002 in the said Miscellaneous Appeal the said respondent no.6, namely, owner of the vehicle was not party in the Miscellaneous Appeal and the said order was passed behind his back fixing specific liability against him without hearing. 6. In the said circumstances, it is quite apparent that there is error apparent on the face of the record in the said order dated 23.10.2002 passed in the Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence this review petition is allowed and the aforesaid order dated 23.10.2002 passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 62 of 1994 is reviewed and recalled. - 3 - 7. However, this order will be subject to the substituted heirs of the petitioner of this review petition (respondent no.6 in M.A.) filing their duly executed vakalatnama in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 62 of 1994 within two weeks from today along with an application for being impleaded as respondents in the aforesaid Miscellaneous Appeal. Let the said Miscellaneous Appeal be listed for final hearing immediately thereafter. shahid (S.N. Hussain, J)