IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Writ Petition No. 1347 of 2008 (M/S) [ Bhupendra Singh ...…………. Petitioner Versus Regional Manager and five others. ...………… Respondents Mr. Lalit Miglani, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. D.S. Patni, Advocate for respondent No. 1. Mr. Vipul Painuly, Advocate for respondent No. 3. Hon’ble Prafulla C. Pant, J. By means of this petition, moved under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 08.07.2008, passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / District Judge, Tehri Garhwal, in Motor Accident Claim Case No. 29 of 2007, whereby amendment application 62-B, moved by the petitioner before the Tribunal, was rejected. 2) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record summoned from the Tribunal. 3) Photocopy of driving license of driver Bhura S/o Shakur was filed on behalf of said party before the 2 Tribunal, which was found fake by the Tribunal, after the Insurance Company led its evidence and got summoned the record from the licensing authority. Thereafter, a new driving license is sought to be brought on record by moving an amendment application before the Tribunal, and the Tribunal after hearing the parties, rejected said amendment application. 4) Having gone through the evidence led before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, the amendment application moved on behalf of the owner of the vehicle (present petitioner before this Court) does not appear to be bonafide, and the Tribunal has rightly rejected said application. 5) Therefore, this writ petition is dismissed, summarily. Interim order dated 05.08.2008, passed by this Court, stands vacated. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal’s record be sent back. (Prafulla C. Pant, J.) Dt. August 20, 2009. H. Negi