@x HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETmON ( 227) No. 50471201 1 PETITIONER Ravindra Kumar Agrawal S/o Sri Non—applicant no._ 2/owner K.K. Aglawal Aged-about 32 years, R/o Adamh Nagar Bhilai, Distt. Durg [C.G.] Haal Mukam T.P. Nagar, Korba, Vijaya Taldes Road, Korba, Distt. Korba [C.G.]. VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. Sri. Shyam Shudar Thakur S/o Claimants late Sn' Mahadev Singh Thakur, aged 50 years, caste Rajput, R/o near Aramsheen water tank, CSEB, Korba, Distt. Korba [C.G.]. 2. Smt. Durga Bai Thakur W/o Sri Shyam Sundar Thakur aged 46 yeals, caste Rajput, R/o near Axamsheen water tank, CSEB, Korba, Distt. Korba [C.G.]. Non—Applicant no. 1 3. Monu Sahu S/o Sn' Radhe Sao aged about ‘20 yeals, R/o Seepat, Navadih, Thana Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur [C.G.]. NoneApplicant no. 3 4. National Insumnce company limited Brauch manager, National Insurance company limited, 13 Minu complex, main road, Kosabadi, Korba, Distt.-Korba [C.G.]. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. (SB :Hon’ble Mr. T.P.Sharma, J.) Present:- Shri Sanjay Patel, Advocate for the petitioner. Respondents not noticed. ORAL- ORDER (Passed on 01/09/201 1) 1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India petitioner has challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated 24/6/2011 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Korba, (C.G.) in C.’I‘. No. 44/ 09 whereby applicah‘on filed on behalf of the present petitioner/owner of the vehicle for amendment relating to driving license of the driver has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that present petitioner is owner. of the vehicle has tiled aforesaid amendment although, at afmr reply of the Insurance Company and after iixing the case for evidence of R.T.O. who has renewed the forged driving license but in the light of the pleading of the Insurance Company amendment is necessaly for just decision of the case, Present petitioner has challenged the order dated 24/6/ 2011 by filing this petition on 23/8/ 2011 after next date of hearing i.e. 28/7/2011 shows that present petitioner is not serious about prosecution of its case and believing in delaw‘ng the case although, for just decision of the real controversy between parties aforesaid amendment is necessary. Further notice to respondents and observange of the procedural law in the present case would only be futile exercise and will again cause delay in trial. Consequently, petition is allowed subject to payment of cost of Rs. 2,000] ~ to the leamed counsel for the claimants i.e. respondents No. 1 8r, 2 before the Tribunal within 10 days. Subject to payment of cost, the order impugned to the extent ‘of disposal of application for amendment med on behalf of the petitioner is hereby quashed. Petitioner shall amend his pleading as claimed in his application for amendment. LA. No. 01 stands disposed of. No order as to costs. Certified copy as per rules. T.P.Sharma Judge {// Sd/-