1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. JUDGMENT Nand Lal Vs. Shivbrahma Singh & Anr. (S. B. Civil Writ Petition No.11424/2010) S. B. Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Date of Judgment: August 18, 2010 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.S. CHAUHAN Mr.Sunil Jain, for the petitioner. BY THE COURT: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 17.06.2010, passed by the learned Additional District Judge (Fast Track) No.1, cum Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Tonk, whereby the learned tribunal has allowed the application filed by the respondent No.1 under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Mr. Sunil Jain, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has contended that initially while passing the award dated 23.01.2006, the learned Tribunal had held that the case of accident was a case of contributory negligence wherein while 80% of negligence was of the Jeep driver, 20% of negligence was of the motorcycle driver. This finding was challenged by the claim petitioner before this Court in S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal 2 NO.2001/2006. Vide judgment dated 06.03.2009 while remanding the case back to the learned Tribunal, this Court had observed that it is not a case of contributory negligence, but is a case of composite negligence. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in case of composite negligence, it is the discretion of the claimant to proceed against a particular person. Therefore, the learned Tribunal was unjustified in impleading the respondent No.1 as a party respondent. He further contends that the petitioner is aggrieved by the impleadment as the impleadment would lead to the case lingering on before the learned Tribunal and its early decision cannot be guaranteed. Lastly, according to the learned counsel, while remanding the case back to the Tribunal, this Court had directed the Tribunal to decide the case within a period of three months, yet despite the said direction, the case has been lingering on for over a period of one year. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. A bare perusal of the impugned order clearly reveals that the learned Judge has opined that once it was decided by this Court that the case is of composite negligence, it was imperative to make the owner of both the offending vehicles 3 as party respondents. Therefore, the learned Judge was certainly justified in allowing the said application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC. Moreover, by making the respondent No.1 as party respondent, no prejudice is being caused to the present petitioner. Afterall even the respondent No.1 would have the right to be heard before any adverse order or award, if any, is passed against him. In case the learned Tribunal has overstepped the time limit prescribed by this Court, an alternate remedy is clearly available to the petitioner to pursue the matter in accordance with law. However, the petitioner has not availed of the said remedy. Therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to claim that his anxiety is that the claim petition still continue to be pending before the learned tribunal. In this view of the matter, this petition is devoid of any merit. It is, hereby, dismissed. (R.S. CHAUHAN) J. Manoj solanki