LN’ ‘ ASPUR P’geg)§ N03~ Petitioner Narmada Manager, Chc, oung Mungeli amaha Road, Company, Bilaspur, apph‘cant Tahsii 6c. Dist. Bilasr k) Versus Applicants Respondens 1. Jaiswal Ramswanl, age 48 years, son of Tulsiraxn Smt. Pibai a 42 years, wife of amswrup aiswai. Sadhna Jaiswal, age 17 yeam. . Avamsh daiswai, age 10 years. Respondent No. 3 & 4 (minors) through their guardian father Ramswarup Jaiswal. All 0f them resident of VHlage Sam‘smal, Po. Non- 5. Akbrar, Kapur Tahsii Chand Lonni, Dhritlahre, Distt. Biiaspur son (C.G.) of applicarxts Krishrxachami, Village Bakurda, Po. Tikari, Distt. Biiasur (C.G.) p 6. Senjay Yadav son o Samram Yadav, House No. 37, Magarpara Ward, Bilaspur, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) .WiIlJ EJEXQCUQ ER ABllb£hZ£L0EI '‘ (SB: Hon’ble Sh tish K. Agnihotri J.) L1§§ A Shri KoumzLl Pandey, Advocate for the petitioer. n {Passed on this 17th Day ofNovember, 2008) I. The petitioner is non-applicant No.2 in an application (C.'l‘.No. 29/ 2007) tiled by the claimants/respondents No. I to 4 for 1 Compensation under Section 163(A) otthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1988. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 1), whereby the application of the petitioner to Lo delete the name of the petitioner from the array of respondents was rejected and the order dated 14.7.2008 (Annexute‘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 ofaccident), \ \Ns preliminaiy issue. \ _I‘HE HIGH COURT OF CHHA’I’lISGARH : BJL Writ‘gutiogt22nNg£f 2008 Y wk Y t pu (b t p £0 hu ge K d 4 f ”“NQIWUTIQN Or u n §a \ The Second Additional Motor Accidcnt Chims Tribunal, Mungeli, Dismict — Bilaspur, by the above impugned orders rejected both the applications flied by the petin‘oner 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, The same can be done only after examining the evidences and documents and as such the application I‘or decision on the issue No.3, as pieliminary issue, was rejected with the observation that the same shall be considered and decided along wi1h other issues, pending consideration, l have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. I do not hnd any iiregularity or infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned orders, wherein the learned court below has taken a view that the 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. 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 from interfering 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 CaSit. in view of the rOregoing and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove, there is no merit in this petition and the same is dismissed at motion stage. Sd/- fSatish K. Agnihotri Judge