IN THE HIGH COURI‘ OF CHHA’I‘TISGARH : BILASPUR Writ Petition (227) No. 6404 of 2008 Petitioner Non- applicant Versus Respondents 1. Applicant Non— apphcant Non- applicant t3 Manager, Young Yamaha Company, Namada Chowk, Mungeli Road, Bilaspur, Tahsii 85 Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Anuj Ram Jaiswal, age 40 years, son of Tulsiram, resident of Village Saristaal, Po, AKnaraI, Tahsil Loum', Distt. ,Biiaspur (cs) Kapur Chand Dhxitlahre, son of Krishnachand, Village Bakurda, Po. ’I‘ikari, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) Sanjay Yadav son of Santram Yadav, House No. 37, Magaxpara Ward, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) .11 WRIT PE’l‘i’I‘ION UNDER ARI‘ICLE 227 OF THE CONS’I‘ITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shn' Kamal Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner. (Passed on this 17th Day of November, 2008) The petitioner is non-applicant No.2 in an application (C.’l‘.No. 30/2007) iiled by the claimantjxespondent No.1 for compensation under Section 163(A) of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/ l), whereby the application of the petitioner to delete the name of the petitioner from the array of respondents was rejected and the order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexure P/2), whereby the application tiled under Order 14 Rule 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the petitioner to decide the issue No.3 ( out of the respondents No. 1 or 2 or 3, Who was the owner of the mother cycle at the time of accident), as preliminary issue. ORDER gh The Second Addiuonal. Motor Accident Claims ’l‘n‘bunal, Mungeji, District — Bilaspur, by the above impugned orders rejected both the applications iiled by the petitioner holding that it is not necessary to examine the issue at this stage, asto who is liable for payment of compensation and also who is the owner of the vehicle. ’l‘he same can be done only after examining the evidences and documents and as such the application for decision on the issue No.3, as preliminary issue, was rejected with the observation that the same shall be considered and decided along with other issues, pending consideration. l have heard leained counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 4. I do not find any irregularity or iniirmity or jurisdictional ermr in the impugned orders, wherein the learned court below has taken a View that die ownership and liability cannot be decided at the initial stage, as it requires examination of evidences and documents and the same shall be decided along with other issues, pending consideration. 5. It is well-nigh established that this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself Im‘m interieiing with the order passed by the Courts below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality, irregularity or jurisdictional error is writ large on the face of the record, which is not in the present caSE. Thakur fSatish K. Agnihotri Judge