1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3620/2005 Dr. Atul Laxminarayan Shende ..vs.. Smt. Nirmala Mangal Indorkar and anr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's Orders or Court's or Judge's Orders directions and Registrar's orders. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM: R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 5 th March, 2008 1. Heard Mr. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Athar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1, none for other respondent, though served. 2. Respondent No. 1 is claimant and the respondent No. 2 is respondent No. 2 in the original claim petition before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. Mr. Gilda, learned counsel for the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 20.06.2005 passed below application at Exh.-54 and 56 for recalling of the witness of the claimant and for impleading Insurance Company as party in the proceeding respectively. Both the applications came to be rejected and, therefore, the present petition is being filed. 2 3. Mr. Gilda, learned counsel further submits that the application at Exh.-56 for impleading the Insurance Company was rejected only on the ground that the application is vague as name of the Insurance Company is not disclosed. He further submits that he be allowed to file fresh application by giving details. He further submits that after decision on this application, the petitioner's other application at Exh.-54 for recalling of the witness be considered afresh. 4. Mr. Athar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 has no objection if the petitioner is allowed to file fresh application for impleading Insurance Company as party respondent in the Claim Petition and after decision on this application, the petitioner's application at Exh.-54 for recalling of the witness be considered afresh. 5. In that view of the matter, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order:- (i) The impugned orders dated 20.06.2005 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagpur below applications 3 at Exh.-54 and 56 in Claim Petition No. 961/1997 are quashed and set aside. (ii) The petitioner is permitted to file fresh application for impleading the Insurance Company as party/respondent. The Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, thereafter, shall decide the petitioner's application at Exh.-54 afresh along with the application that may be filed for impleading party, after giving opportunity to both the sides. (iii) In the facts and circumstances of the case, Claim Petition No. 961/1997 is directed to be heard as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. (iv) With these observations, the writ petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. JUDGE kahale