HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGH AT BILASPUR (Hon. Mr. Justice Pritinker Diwaker) WRIT PETITION (227) No.4488 of 2008 PETITIONER Smt. Purnima Bai Wife of‘ Late Anuj (Applicant in Sinha, aged about 27 years, presently residing at Village Main Ulo1 R 10(2) of application filed Road Pipariya, Post and Police C.P.C.) Station Pipariya, Tahsil and District Kabirdham (Kawardha) (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTs 1. Laxmi Bai Wife of Late Andj Sinha, (Appeilant in aged about 21 years, Resident of application filed Ranveerpur, Police Station UIS. 1660fthe Sahaspurlohara, presentiy residing M.V.A.) at Village Navagaon, Tahsil and Police Station Berla, District Durg (C.G.) Surendra Agrawal, Son of‘ Rambagas Agrawai, aged about 4O years, Resident ‘of Ranveerpur, Police Station Sahaspurlohara, District Kabirdham (C.G.) The Reliance General insurance Company, 74th floor Jai Stambh Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) 4. Chaituram. Son of Late Ghunha Sinha, aged about 80 years; Dhan Bai, Wife of Jait Sinha, aged about 48 years; . 5. Both resident Ranveerpur, Tahsil and District Kabirdham (C.G.) Badrika Bai, Dlo Narsingh Sinha, Resident of Village Sinwar, Tahsil and, Police Station Berla, District ‘ Durg (C.G.) ’ Mr,P.P, Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Pushpendra Kumar Patel, counsel for respondents. @ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONsTITUTION OF INDIA O R D E R (21.04.2009) The petitioner is challenging the order dated 10.07.2008\ passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bemetara, District Durg,‘ whereby the application tiled by the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Code of Civil Procedure has been rejected. 2. The case of the petitioner is that she is legally wedded first wife of deceased Anuj Sinha, who has expired in an accident on 26.05.‘2007. According to her, a claim case has already been filed by respondent No.1 claiming herseif to be the wife of deceased Anuj Sinha. Moreover, the stand of the petitioner is that as she is the legally wedded wife of deceased Anuj. Sinha, her application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure should have been allowed; 3. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact there was no divorce between the petitioner and the deceased Anuj Sinha. According to him, this fact was well within the knowledge of the respondent No. 1 — Laxmi Bai, yet she has deliberateiy not impleaded the petitioner in the claim case hiedby her. He further submits that merely by allowing her application filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure does not mean that she would be entitled for any claim because ultimately the right of the respective parties would be decided after evidence of all the . 7" n ¥ I have heard ccunse! for the avéiiabie on record; as application may appear of , either to the pa upoh , and or on wfthoUt such terms the ‘ C ‘ ~4/ 1O years back and she is the Iegeliy wedded wife of the deceased. He further submits that after the petitioner had ieft the deceased, there was another marriage of‘the deceased when he got married to one Badrika Bai. Likewise, witness Janohar has also admitted in his statement that petitioner is the legaiiy wedded wife of the deceased. 7. . Without further entering into the merits of the case and without deciding the rights of the parties at this stage, this Court is of the view that no prejudice is going to be caused to respondent No.1 if the petitioner is pe‘rmittedto be impleaded as 0 iparty in the claim case because it is yet to be ascertained whether the claimants are entitled'for any claim or not. 8. ln view of the foregoing discussion, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the order impugned is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the order impugned is hereby set aside. Petitioner is directed to be joined as party as prayed in her application and thereafter she shall be permitted to participate in the proceedings. 9. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any ' opinion on merit of the case and it would be open for the Court to hnally decide as to whether the claimants are in fact entitled for any claim. Sd/- Pritinker Diwaker Judge 10. No order as to costs.