PETITIONERS NON-CLAIMANT HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (227) No. 4342 OF 2010 1. Ranjit Ram Kushwaha, s/o Tapeshwar Ram Kushwaha, aged about 55 years, occupation Teacher. 2. Sadhna Kushwaha, w/o Late rakesh Roshan. Both resident of village Banja, Police Station and Tehsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) RESPONDENTS: CLAIMANTS VERSUS (1) (2) (3) RESPONDENTS NON-CLAIMANTS (4) (5) (6) (7) Bira Bai, w/o Late Hukum sai, aged about 30 years. Sani Lal, s/o Late Hukuin Sai Vishwakarma, aged about 16 years, Minor through mother Bira Bai, Dhanmat, w/o Bakshay, aged about 60 years. ; All. the above respondents resident of village Banja, Police Statioh and tehsil Surajpur, District Sarguja (C.G.) Shivam Kushwaha (Minor), s/o late Rakesh Roshan Kushwaha, aged about Q6 years Anku Kushwaha (Minor) S/0 Late Rakesh Roshan Kushwaha, Aged About 04 Years Both The Minors Respondents No. 4 SES Through Their : Mother SadHna Kushwaha, W/0 Rakesh Roshan Kushwaha, R/0 Village Banja, Police Station and Tehsil Surajpur, District SargujafC.G.) Sumitra, w/o Ranjeet Ram! Kushwaha, aged abouf 50 years, R/o village Banja, Police Station and Tehsil Surajpur District Sarguja (C.G.) Saniharo, w/o Shiv Prasad Vishwakarma, aged about 32 years, R/o village Barwa Dand (Kasra Bodar),Tehsil Baikunhpur, District Koriya (C.G.) WRI'Ii.PETITION U/A227 OF THE GONSITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon'ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Surfaraj Khan, Advocate for the petitioners. Respondents not noticed. w-t-' k/ n' 4. 1. Heard. ORAL-ORDER (Passedon 16/08/2010) Order irapugned dated 6/7/2010 passed by leamed Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Surajpur, District Sarguja (in short 'the Tribunal') in claim case No. 25/2009 perused whereby learned Tribunal has allowed the application for amendraent in making other persons as a party after closing the evidence ofclaimants/respondents No. 1 to 3. Leamed counsel for the petidoners submits that at the time of filing written statement present respondents. haye specifically alleged and objected the claim petition on the ground that petitioners have not made parties which were necessary for disposal of the petition and case suffers from infirmity of non- joinder and misjoinder but respondents/clainiants have not amended their petition suitably and after closing their case they have iiled amendment petition and Court below has illegally permitted. Written statement of Para-6 itself is notorious pleading. Amendment application and order impugned reveals that when clairaants came to know relating to factum of other persons as a necessary party then they have filed this petition. On due consideration, I do not find any illegality in the order impugned; Consequently, this petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. 6. 7. I.A. No. 01 is also dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- T. P. Sharma Judge tT'UI: