T5ST •'tiWW'ti, »Tn<H'16, R|cilti^< *<|t|dl **<!* •^ 200 an^FT 'vss: (^qf^g^f) sn^i.^i; R-fi'b WTSIR^I shtll* TOiiw^ifeTaii^r SINGLE BENCH: HON'BLE W.P. [22P1 N0.1381/08 PETtTIONER Manrakhan about 57 Sidesar, Tal North Basta Vs RESPONDENTS 1. Bharos about 65 2. Lalit about 3q Both are Station (C.G.) 3. Ayatu years, Tahsil &| Bastar, 4. Proprieti] authoriz^ Tractor, District (am, S/0 Rannu Lal Maat Lal, aged lyeare Kurfiar, S/0 Bharos Lal Maat Lal, aged lyeare. R/o Village Sidesar, Tahsil & Police Panker, District-North Bastar, Kanker Rbm, 03.03.2008 Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advpcat^- Heard. The petitioner, being aggriev^: P-10 passed by the Additional Motot| the Tribunal'), has preferred this pe( India. Learned counset for the petjti' the registered owner of the motor v^t applicant No.l/respondent No.3 is name fromthe array of non-applicailt 14 Rule 5 of CPC for framing addjtKtnal <=hl*1^qH 'RFi^ff '£f1^^ <pi-i^l< ^aiRiiraii^r USTICE DHIRENORA MISHRA |Jain, Sfo Dekhi Ram Jain, aged ?ears, Caste- Kalar, R/o Village- isil & Police Station Kanker, Dlstrict- , Kanker (C.G.) i, S/0 Rati Ram, aged about 25 ;aste- Gond, R/o Village-Sidesar, Police Statlon Kanker, District-North |;anker (C.G.). Aman Agro Industries, Dhamtari, ad dealer of Mahindra & Mahindra |Aman Agro Industries Raipur Road, Qihamtari (C.G.) 'or the petitioner. y by the order dated 6.2.2008 of Annexure Accident Claims Tribunal, Kanker (for short ition under Article 227 of the Constitution of ioner submits that the petitioner is neither licle-truck involved in the accident nor non- his driver. His application for deleting his and ateo the applteation filed under Order issues was rejected by the Tribunal vyith ^;' ' GRPRJ .— FS/346—2/2007 — 50.000. 1.1. ''% '? / ,.jXI-HC—78 ^T 3'EET '<11<11<?><<, 8iTf1+l'l(o, (SlCiK-fy t{Wvi\ **<!* 3D^T ?il [<;.-f[<t) '^H^n^T st)*l|ch li ^ ''^. A WI, 200 Stt^T 'fS^ (lpf^?tT) waiw^ifw 3ii^i -TJ"\ the observatjon that the questioil applfcatjon can be decided onlyaft^r The Tribunal by the impugrjed the claim petition as ateo from the herein there is a pleading that at th^ in the cuslody and supervisi^n No.l/respondent No.3 was the application for deleting the name| allowed, as the same is subject under Order 14 Rule 5 of CPC ha^ in view of the issues framed by required. From perusal oftheframed i^si 5, it is observed that issue No.1 petitioner in his application under 0|' Wfth the aforesaid observatitn, Consequentiy. I.A. No.1 alsc| <ft1^[<n^Tt HIH^if ^Fs'^ ^FaK-^K ^siRwaii^r raised by the petitioner in the aforesaid recording evidence. order has'observed that from perusal of reply of non-appticarrt No.S/respondent No.4 i^ time of accident the vehicle in question was of the petitioner and non-applicant (friver of the petitioner and therefore, the of the petitioner at this stage cannot be n|iatter of evidence. Similarly, the application also been rejected with an observation that jhe Tribunal, framing of fresh issues is not fesues, which have been fited as Annexure P- |takes care of the issues proposed by the Mer14Rule5ofCPC. the petition is disposed of. stands disp(»edof. Dbtee Sd;- »dra^lstffa 3ud6e