IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.514 of 2009 SRI SURENDRA PRASAD SINGH @ SURENDRA PRASAD, SON OFHARIHAR MAHTO @ HARIHAR PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-BHADRU, P.S.-CHENDI, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………O.P……………PETITIONER. Versus 1. SMT.PREMSHEELA DEVI @ SUSHILA DEVI WIDOW OF LATE JAGDISH MAHTO @ KAROO PRASAD (DECEASED), R/O MOHALLA-CHHATI PAHARI, P.S.-SAHSORAI (BIHARSHARIF), DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………PETITIONER………………O.P. 2. RAGHO PRASAD, SON OF RAM KRISHNA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE-TINNI LODIPUR, P.S.-CHANDIPUR, DISTRICT-NALANDA. ………………O.P………………O.P. ----------- 2 01.04.2009 Heard learned senior counsel for the petitioner. This civil revision application has been filed by the defendant against order dated 5.1.2009 passed by Ist Additional Session Judge, Nalanda at Biharsharif in Claim Case No. 10 of 1992 by which the petition of the petitioner under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. for adding Arjun Kumar as opposite party no. 4, has been rejected. The contention of learned senior counsel for the petitioner is that during the pendency of the claim case, one Arjun Kumar filed an affidavit claiming therein that his father had purchased the vehicle from this petitioner in January 1992 and the claim of this petitioner is that he had sold the vehicle to one Ragho - 2 - Prasad earlier. In view of the said position, the petitioner filed the said application under Order I Rule 10 read with Section 151 of the C.P.C. in the claim case for adding said Arjun Kumar as opposite party no. 4. This Court has perused the impugned order passed by the learned court below from which it appears that the learned court below has considered that it is for the claimant to set up a claim against the owner of the vehicle for compensation on account of accident. If the claimant does not make the correct owner of the vehicle as opposite party in the claim case his claim shall stand dismissed. Therefore, it concerns the claimant to make enquiry and to make the correct person as an opposite party in the claim case who appears to him to be the owner of the vehicle on the date of accident. The learned court below has also taken into account that said Arjun Kumar in his affidavit has stated that his father had purchased the vehicle in January, 1992 whereas the date of accident was 5.12.1991, therefore, even if the affidavit of Arjun Kumar was correct his father was subsequent purchaser of - 3 - the vehicle which did not affect the claim of the claimant against the owner of the vehicle who was owning the same as on the date of accident. After going through the impugned order, it appears that the said application of the petitioner has been rejected by the learned court below on cogent grounds and therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision application and the same is dismissed. Since the claim case is of 1991 the court below is directed to proceed in the mater expeditiously and decide the same as early as possible and not later than six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)