THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2003 OF 1998 Date:28.08.2009 Between: Pattem Reddeppa Reddy …Petitioner/Appellant/4th respondent And P.Chandrasekhar Reddy and four others …Respondents THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO C.M.A.NO. 2003 OF 1998 JUDGMENT: This appeal is directed against the order, dated 21.04.1998 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-cum-Additional District Judge, at Madanapalle in I.A.No.291 of 1998 in O.P.No. 22 of 1993. 2. A petition is filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC to implead the appellant as 4th respondent on the ground that he is the real owner of the offending vehicle and as such, he is a necessary party to the proceedings. The learned Tribunal below allowed the petition directing impleadment of appellant as 4th respondent. 3. The said order is put to challenge in this appeal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the respondents. 5. It is contended by the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that the tractor standing in the name of the appellant was not at all involved in the accident, O.P.No.21 of 1993 filed by the respondents 4 and 5 under no fault liability (Under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act) was dismissed on merits holding that the respondents 4 and 5 are not entitled to claim compensation against the appellant as his vehicle was not involved. 6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that since it was discovered subsequently that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle which was actually involved in the accident, the petition filed by them was rightly allowed directing for impleadment of the appellant as 4th respondent and the order requires no interference. 7. Perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal shows that it was the contention of the respondents that only after perusing the counter filed by the first respondent in the original petition, they came to know about the fact that the appellant is the owner of the vehicle involved in the accident. 8. There is no dispute about the fact that delay of four years occurred for filing the petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC. Even according to the respondents, it came to their notice when the first respondent filed his counter in the main original petition. If that is so, there are no bona fides on the part of the respondents to file a petition under Order I Rule 10 CPC after a lapse of four years and the learned trial Court ought not to have allowed the petition. Further according to the appellant, in OP No.21 of 1993 filed by the respondents 4 and 5 under Section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act, the Tribunal held that the vehicle belonging to the appellant was not involved in the accident and therefore, he is not liable to pay compensation which fact is not disputed by the respondents 4 and 5. 9. In view of the above, the order passed by the learned Tribunal is misconceived, not in accordance with law, and is liable to be set aside and accordingly, the same is set aside. 10. Consequently, the C.M.A. is allowed without any order as to costs. ______________ Date:28-08-2009 R.KANTHA RAO, J CCM