1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 4977 OF 2010 Narendra s/o Dhanraj Mane .. PETITIONER VERSUS Anusayabai w/o Ramesh Koparkar & others .. RESPONDENTS Mr. A.P. Yenegure, advocate for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M. BORDE, J. DATE : 23 rd AUGUST, 2010. PER COURT : 1 Petitioner / original respondent no. 1 in the claim petition bearing no. 147/2009 presented application at exh. 22 seeking impleadment of respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein as party to the claim petition. Petitioner herein / respondent no. 1 sought leave to amend the title clause of the claim petition. It is his contention that the vehicle in question which was involved in the accident has been transferred by way of exchange to respondent nos. 3 and 4 and as such they are necessary parties to the claim petition. 2 2 Application was opposed by the claimant by presenting say. It is contended by the claimant that respondent no. 1 / petitioner herein is the registered owner of the vehicle and as such, amendment seeking addition of parties to the claim petition presented by the claimant is not warranted. 3 Considering the rival contentions, trial court proceeded to reject the application tendered by respondent no. 1 / petitioner herein. It is observed by the trial court in the impugned order that it is the responsibility of the claimant to implead proper parties to the claim petition and it is also responsibility of respondent no. 1 / petitioner herein to prove valid exchange between him and respondent nos. 3 and 4 herein. As the claimant was not willing to join respondent nos. 3 and 4 as party, trial court deemed it inappropriate to allow the application. 4 It is the responsibility of the registered owner to meet the claim raised by the claimant. It is not disputed that respondent no. 1 is the registered owner of the vehicle and as such, he is the necessary party to the claim petition and is required to meet the claim raised by the claimant. It is not incumbent upon the claimant to implead respondent nos. 3 and 4 as parties to the claim petition solely because the registered owner claims to have 3 privately exchanged the vehicle with them. Order passed by the trial court rejecting the application tendered by the petitioner herein / respondent no. 1 appears to be legal and proper. No interference is called for in the petition in exercise of extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Petition therefore stands rejected. 5 Pending civil application, if any, does not survive and stands disposed of. ( R. M. BORDE ) JUDGE dyb/wp4977.10.odt