CR No.6568 of 2009 - 1 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CR No.6568 of 2009 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 04.12.2009 **** Ram Nath . . . . Petitioner VS. Baljeet Singh and Others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. R.C. Kapoor, Advocate for the respondent No.3 ***** SURYA KANT J.(ORAL) (1). This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26.10.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal, whereby, an amendment application moved by the petitioner-claimant for amendment and consequential addition of the second name of his deceased wife, has been declined. (2). The petitioner’s case is that before marriage, the name of his wife was Veena Rani which was changed to Kamla @ Kamlesh after the marriage. The petitioner-claimant appears to have led his evidence to this effect but since in the claim petition the name of his deceased-wife has been mentioned as Kamla @ Kamlesh only, he sought the necessary amendment that before their marriage, his wife was known by the name of Veena Rani also. CR No.6568 of 2009 - 2 - (3). Notice of motion was issued and pursuant thereto counsel for the parties have been heard. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length, I am of the considered view that there is no legal embargo against incorporating the second name of the petitioner’s wife as was before their marriage. Suffice it to observe that as to whether the petitioner’s wife before her marriage was known as Veena Rani is a question of fact and would be determined by the Tribunal on the basis of evidence on record. At this stage, the petitioner merely intends to incorporate the necessary ingredients in the claim petition. (5). For the reason afore-stated, the revision petition is allowed; the impugned order dated 26.10.2009 passed by MACT Karnal is hereby set aside and the petitioner is permitted to amend the claim petition to the limited extent that before marriage his wife’s name was Veena Rani. The petitioner, however, shall still be obligated to prove the aforesaid plea. (6). Dasti. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 04.12.2009 vishal shonkar