C.R. No. 4000 of 2010 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 4000 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision : 04.08.2010 Smt. Santosh Lamba & others .......... Petitioners Versus Kashmir Singh & others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Kunal Dawar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) The learned counsel for the petitioners contends, that respondents No.1 & 2 are not contesting parties, therefore, their service be dispensed with for the purpose of motion hearing. “Ordered accordingly”. The petitioners have invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to challenge the order dated 2.4.2010, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”), vide which the application moved by the petitioners to summon respondent No.2A stands declined. The impugned order reads as under :- “No PW is present nor any stands summoned. An application has been filed by C.R. No. 4000 of 2010 -2- the petitioner for summoning respondent No.2A, however, notice to the said respondent has already been declined vide order dated 28.1.2010 for the reasons that despite repeated directions, the petitioner has failed to file registered cover for issuing notice to said respondent. Issues have already been framed and case is now fixed for evidence of the petitioner and therefore, there is no stage for issuing notice to respondent No.2A. Accordingly, application is rejected and the petition is posted to 22.7.2010 for his evidence. In case any witness is to be summoned, PF/DM be filed within three days and dasti summons are allowed to be taken otherwise witnesses be produced at own responsibility.” The impugned order can not be sustained, as it suffers from patent illegality. The learned Tribunal has proceeded on the presumption that an adverse order was passed against the petitioners qua respondent No.2A, though as a matter of fact, the learned Tribunal only observed, that the petitioner had not complied with the order passed by the learned Tribunal for effecting service on respondent No.2A. The learned Tribunal had not exercised discretion under Order 9 Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure to dismiss the claim qua respondent No.2A. Respondent No. 2A continues to be one of the respondents. The application made by the petitioners for summoning respondent No.2A at this stage, therefore, could not have been declined, on the presumption, that any adverse order was passed C.R. No. 4000 of 2010 -3- against the petitioners on 28.1.2010. The Procedural law is meant for advancement of justice, and not to thwart justice, therefore, merely because issues were framed is no ground to refuse service on respondent No.2A. The order passed being based on misreading of order dated 28.1.2010, is perverse, therefore, can not be sustained. Consequently, the revision petition is allowed, the impugned order is set aside. Application moved by the petitioner for summoning respondent No.2A is allowed. The learned Tribunal is directed to issue summons to respondent No.2A, and thereafter proceed in accordance with law. No costs. 04.08.2010 (VINOD K. SHARMA) 'sp' JUDGE