IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2908 of 2005 UNITED INDIA INSURANCE CO.LTD. Regional Office, Veerchand Patel Mrg R-Block Patna through Dy. Manager. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. Durga Paswan s/o Late Sadhu Paswan R.O.V Chotki Nawadah, P.S. Delhi, Dist-Gaya, At present R/village-Bodh Gaya Harijan Colony P.S. Bodh Gaya Dist-Gaya. 3. Sri Ravi Shankar Singh S/op Sri Akhilesh Prasad Singh R/o village-Kooli, P.S. Makhadumpur, Dist-Jehanabad At present residing at Mohalla Beladari Tola, New Area, P.S. Civil Lines, Dist-Gaya. 4. Sri Ramanuj Sharma S/o Brinda Sharma. R/o Village Tetariya P.S. Tekari, Dist-Gaya. 5. Smt. Sunaina devi W/o Sri Bhola Paswan, R/o Village Bhore Mausa, P.s. Mofassil, Dist-Gaya. -------- For the petitioner :- Mr. R.C.L. Das, Adv. Mr. Ashok Kumar Adv. 3 7.3.2011 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 26.8.2003 passed in Motor Accident Claim No. 28 of 2002 by which the Additional Motor Claim Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge-VIII, Gaya rejected the petitioner’s (United India Insurance Company Ltd.) claim that its name may be deleted from the column of opposite parties in that case and that its earlier order dated 27.8.2002 passed under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act be reviewed on the ground that after 2 thorough investigation it was found that the policy was fake. 3. From the facts and circumstances of this case, it is quite apparent that the claimants who had filed the aforesaid motor Accident Claim being dominus litis the choice of impleading parties lies with them. 4. Furthermore, the tribunal had considered the matter in detail and had found that in its written statement the Insurance Company had not denied the insurance of vehicle in clear terms and had only stated that it was merely subject to verification and hence the order was rightly passed at the stage of Section 140 of the Act. The said tribunal had also found that the assessments of the Insurance Company appeared to be pre-mature and hence, his prayer was rightly rejected. 5. From the entire facts and circumstance of this case, it is apparent that this writ petition has got no merit at all and had been filed only with a view to delay the disposal of the Motor Accident Claim No. 28 of 2002. 6. Accordingly, this writ petition 3 is dismissed with a direction to the Motor Claim Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, Gaya to decide the case, if not yet decided, expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without giving any undue adjournment to any of the parties. Prakash (S.N.Hussain,J.)