IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 4280 of 2011 Date of decision: 26.7.2011 Yash Pal Bhatia … Petitioner versus Raghunandan and another … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND KUMAR Present: Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners ... ARVIND KUMAR, J: The present petitioner is defendant No.1 in the claim petition under Section 163-A of the Motor Vehicles Act titled Raghunandan v. Yash Pal Bhatia and another. He is owner of tractor No. HR-05E/6996 involved in the accident. He was proceeded against ex-parte on 5.10.2009. He moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte order and to join the proceedings. The application has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 3.5.2011 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. Hence, this revision. Heard. Counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner is owner of the offending vehicle and is in possession of all relevant documents relating to the vehicle including driving licence, which are necessary documents for the proper adjudication of the case. This Court is also of the view that the documents which would be tendered by the petitioner, would be relevant for just decision of the case and that no prejudice is going to be caused to the opposite side if the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings. Accordingly, the present revision is allowed, impugned order is set aside and so as the ex-parte order and the petitioner is permitted to join the proceedings before the Tribunal; however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.10,000/- there. Out of the said amount of Rs.10,000/-, a sum of Rs.5000/- shall be deposited with the District Legal C.R. No. 4280 of 2011 -2- Aid Fund while the remaining Rs.5000/- shall be paid to the claimant. Keeping in view the circumstances mentioned above, this revision is being disposed of without issuing any notice to the opposite party. If the respondents are summoned to contest this litigation, they will have to incur huge expenses to defend this case. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they feel dissatisfied with this order, they may move an application to recall the same. July 26, 2011 ( ARVIND KUMAR ) JS JUDGE