IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. CR NO.3191/2004 Date of Decision:27.4.2009. Somvir Singh ..........Petitioner. Versus Homender Kumar and another ..........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH. Present:- Mr.SS Dinarpur,Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. None for respondent no.1. Mr.Sanjiv Pabbi,Advocate for respondent no.2. JASWANT SINGH,J(Oral) By filing present revision petition petitioner-claimant has challenged the order dated 27.5.2002 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Rohtak (for short the Tribunal) whereby his application for withdrawal of the claim petition with permission to file a fresh one at Delhi was partly accepted and the petitioner was permitted to withdraw his claim petition without liberty to file a fresh one at Delhi. Challenge has further been laid to the order dated 7.5.2004 whereby the application moved by the petitioner for modification/recalling of the order dated 27.5.2002 was dismissed by the learned Tribunal as not maintainable. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It is not disputed that petitioner-claimant met with an accident at Delhi on 13.2.2001 regarding which an FIR was also lodged at Delhi against the respondent-driver. Since the petitioner claimant was practising as an Advocate at Rohtak, he filed claim petition at Rohtak claiming Rs.5 lacs for the injuries suffered by him in the said motor vehicular accident. It is also apparent that at the initial stage itself the application CR NO.3191/2004 2 (Annexure P/1) was moved before the learned Tribunal, as the petitioner had shifted his practice at Delhi and it was not possible for him to attend to the proceedings at Rohtak. The said application, as already noticed above, was partly allowed vide order dated 27.5.2002 without liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh claim petition at Delhi. Application for rectification/modification of the said order was declined vide impugned order dated 7.5.2004. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I am of the considered opinion, in the face of admitted facts that the accident had taken place at Delhi regarding which an FIR No.42/2001 under Sections 279/337 IPC was also lodged at PS Barfkhana Subzi Mandi, Delhi and further keeping in view the changed circumstances that the petitioner had shifted his practice from Rohtak to Delhi, the learned Tribunal, erred in not permitting the petitioner to file a claim petition at Delhi. It was not open for the learned Tribunal to birfurcate the prayer and allow only one part i.e. to permit the petitioner to withdraw the claim petition and decline his request to file a fresh claim petition at Delhi. No prejudice shall be caused to the other party if the petitioner is permitted to file a fresh claim petition under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act,1988, which is a beneficial piece of legislation. Accordingly, ,present revision petition is allowed, impugned orders are set aside and petitioner is permitted to withdraw the claim petition filed before MACT,Rohtak with liberty to file a fresh one at Delhi. 27.4.2009. (Jaswant Singh) joshi Judge