THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5419 of 2009 Date of Order: 05-02-2010 Between: S.Sudhakar ..Petitioner and 1.Balireddy Kanakaraju and others. ..Respondents The Court made the following Order: THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY C.R.P.No.5419 of 2009 Oral order: This revision filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the orders of the I Additional District Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry dated 25-09-2009 dismissing I.A.No.401 of 2009 filed Order I Rule 10 CPC to implead the 3rd respondent in O.P.No.486 of 2007. The petitioner in whose name the vehicle bearing registration No.AP 22 C 1234 stands was involved in an accident for which the 1st respondent herein raised a claim for compensation. In the said O.P. the petitioner herein filed the above I.A. contending that he sold away the said vehicle to the 3rd respondent/proposed party and delivered the possession on 10-01-2004 much prior to the date of accident after executing the relevant documents. Whereas, the 3rd respondent/proposed party admitted that he purchased the said vehicle from the petitioner on10-01-2004, but the same was not transferred in his name. The 3rd respondent in turn sold the vehicle on 20-05-2004 to one Md.Fakruddin @ Hyder, who is the proprietor of M/s Deccan Motors (auto Consultants & Financial Services), S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad for an amount of Rs.2 lakhs by handing over the RC Book. The said Fakruddin @ Hyder is having business in purchasing and selling the old vehicles and he sold away the same to one Attili Nageswara Rao s/o Ramachander Rao, Attilivari Street, Tadepalligudem, who executed a delivery note in that regard and filed a Xerox copy of the delivery letter evidencing purchase of the vehicle. Therefore, the 3rd respondent/proposed party cannot be impleaded as a party to the petition. The lower court by the impugned order dismissed the I.A. holding that the vehicle in question was registered in the name of the petitioner and there is no change in the ownership of the vehicle evidencing transfer and Xerox copy of the delivery note-cum-intermediate receipt issued by Deccan Motors, S.R.Nagar, Hyderabad had no relevancy to determine the ownership and accordingly dismissed the I.A. Questioning the same the present revision is filed. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the 1st respondent and the respondents 2 and 3 have not put up any appearance though served with notices. A learned single Judge of the Madras High Court in Dr.N.MARICHAMY v. K.SUBBURAJ[1] in similar facts held that in case if the compensation is awarded under the Motor Vehicles Act, the claimants must know who is the owner of the vehicle at the time of accident. In case if the transfer is held to be valid, then the proposed parties would be liable to pay the compensation. As otherwise the registered owner is liable to pay the compensation. Under the said circumstances, the application filed under Order I Rule 10 CPC is maintainable and the proposed party should be impleaded as party to the main O.P. proceedings as otherwise the claimants would suffer irreparable injury and hardship which cannot be compensated at a later stage and accordingly allowed the I.A., which was dismissed by the Tribunal. Since the petitioner claims that he had already sold away the vehicle in question to the proposed party prior to the accident, who in turn sold the same to third parties, to prove the said case third parties are necessary parties. In view of the same, the lower court is not justified in dismissing the I.A. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25-09-2009 is set aside and I.A.No.401 of 2009 is allowed as prayed for. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. No costs. ________________ A.GOPAL REDDY, J. 05-02-2010 Murthy [1] 198 ACJ 1085