\\ \\ HIGI-I COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WIP. jArt. 2221 NO. 643412011 PETITIONER Rakesh Dubcy, aged about 4O Non-agalicant no.1 yeaxs, S/o r Harshnath Dubey, ' caste Bramllan, Occupation Busincss, R,’ 0 Anapumapaxa, Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.). VERSlls RESPONDENTS 1. Smt. Janabai W/o Shambhuram Claimants Sahu, aged about 42 years, Caste Tali, Occupation House wife, R/o Village Sidesar, Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.). 2. -Shambhuram Sahu, aged about 52 years, Slo Late Shivlal Sahu, caste Teli, Occupation Labour, R] o Village Sidesar, Tahsil Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.). Ku. Priyanka SIC Shambhuram Sahu, aged about 17 years, Caste Tali, Occupation—Student, RIO Village Sidesar, Tahsil Kanker Distt. Kanker (C.G.) Minor through natural guaniian mother Smt. Jana Bai, caste Tell, Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Sidesar, Tahsil Kanker, Distt. Kanker (C.G.). The National Insurance Company, Raipur (C.G.). Superintendent of Police, Kanker Distt. North Easter Kanker (C.G.). Proposed Party 5. ’l‘ PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF W INDIA. {SE :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.§harma, 3.} Present-Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents No. 1 to 4 not noticed. ORDER §Passed on 03] 1 1 I 201 1) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 29/ 9/ 201 1 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal North Easter Kanker (0.6.) in claim case No. 96/2009 whereby application filed on behalf of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 I of the, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short ‘the Code’) for Shri Vinod Kumar Tekam, PL. tor the State/respondent No. 5. ,H\ ‘\ \\ impleading paity Superintendent of Police, Kanker has been dismissed. Shri D.N. Prajapati, Advocate for the petitioner 8r. Shn' Vinod Kumar ’I‘ekam, P.L. for the State] respondent No. 5 an: heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that vehicle was taken on him by Police Department of District Kanker and deceased driver Bhaskar Sahu was within dixect conuol of Police Department therefore Police Department may be held liable for payment of any damages. He has speciiically pleaded in his written statement but on account of objection on behalf of the respondents No. 1 to 3 application filed on behalf of the petitioner has been dismissed. Oxder impugned and other documents perused. Order impugned reveal that substantially application has been dismissed on the basis of objection made by respondents No. 1 to 3. Even otherwise normally no person shall be impleaded as a party against wishes of plaintifff applicant but in case if Court finds that some person was necessary party for fair decision of the case then considering the objection of applicant/plaintiff Court may dismiss application or suit or refuse to grant any relief. Copy of claim petition does not reflect that at the time of accident deceased Bhaskar Sahu Was driving vehicle at Madagin' Pahadi at whose instance. By hling written statement petitioner has specifically pleaded in Para-17 of Written statement that respondents No: 1 to 3 have already received Rs. 1 Lakh from Chief Executive Officer, Janpad Panchayat, Kanker and State Govt. has also sent proposal for payment of Rs. 3 Lakhs to Central Govt. but petitioner has deliberately omitted the aforesaid facts in his pleading, with these observations petition is dismissed summarily. However, if in the light of aforesaid observations or otherwise 1 respondents No. 1 to 3 filed application for impleading Police .\ Departnmnt] Superintendent of Police, Kanker or other authority as palty then the Court shall decide the application on its own merits without iniluencing by its own order or this order. No order as to COStS . Certifled copy as per rules. TIA » 58/. \ T.P. Shanna/1 < Judge ‘