\! tS ^ \ ( O ^,..- •ffs fffef iSEs«ia IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH BILASPUR WRIT PETITION U/A 227 N0. 2-^- OF 2010 PETITIQNER : ^^^ ^.•%%J/" 3^ ^•••^•a''^" (y4^y /'' cyrv.. >-'yy >'yy Director, Konark Auto Centre, Kharsia Road, Jagatpur, through its Partner Gouri Shankar Sharma S/o Late Shri Chaturbhuj Sharma, aged about 63 years, R/o Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G.) VERSUS RESPONDENTS "•<?>..--. ^/ .®-%s-7>.«g''i'^' ^^ (1) Champa Bai W/0 Late Puniram, aged about 54 years, Caste- Uraon, Occupation- Household, R/0 Hanuman Temple, Jampara, Urdana, Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G.) (Claimant) (2) Junus Khalco, S/0 Thomas Khalco, aged about 68 years, Occupation- Retired Constable, Vinod Agrawal R/0 Urdana, Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G.) (Vehicle Owner) (3) Vivek Uraon, S/0 Dhup Sai, Uraon, aged about 30 years, R/0 above Dhimarpur, Near i:i<a Jagatpur, Tahsil and District Raigarh, (C.G) (Driver) WRIT PETITION U/A 227 OF THE CONSITITUTION OF INDIA \^? ^ ^•74 •A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinate Bench: Hon'bte Shri Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra PETiTIONER RESPONDENTS Writ Petition (2271 No. 822/ 2010 Director, Konark Auto Cenfre Versus Champa Bai and others. Shri Sunil Sahu, counsel for the petitioner. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION 1 1NDIA ORAL ORDER (14.12.2010) In a ctaim petition filed by the claimant/respondent No.1, the respondent No.2 Junus Xalxo was initialty arrayed in the capacity as the owner of the vehicle. The claimant later on moved an application under Order 1 Rute 10 of C.P.C. on the pteadings inter alia that the said Junus Xalxo has disclosed in his reply that on the date of accident the vehicle was not registered In his name as he has purchased the vehicle from one Konark Auto Center, Raigarh on 20h January, 2003,whersas the dafe of accident is 30* December, 2002 and on the date of accident the vehicla was in possession of Konark Auto Cenfre. Thus, the said claimant has moved the application under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C. seeking leave to imptead the petitioner as one of the non-claimant in the claim petition. The Claims Tribunal has granted prayer for joining the petitioner as non-claimant in the claim petition. -(2) After going through the documents available in the writ petition, this Court is not satisfied with the argumente raised by teamed counsel for the petitioner. The question as to who was in possession of the vehicle on the idate of accident or vrtio was the owner of the vehicle in terms of provisions of '? X- the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988, would be a question which could be established one way or the other at the end of triat after permitting alt the parties to lead evidence in this regard. The trial Court has only allowed the claimant to implead the petitioner as non-ctaimant. No prejudice woutd cause to the petitioner, ifthe impugned order is allowed to remain in foree. The petitioner - 'K be. would alwaysfat liberty to raise his defense before the Claims Tribunal. (3) Even otherwise, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Subodh Kumar Gupta and others Vs. Alpana Gupta and others reported in (2005) 11 SCC 578 has held that while considering the petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India arising out of the order passed by the trial Court in exercise of power under Order 1 Rule 10 of C.P.C., the High Court has limited jurisdiction anct no interference should ordinarity be made unless there is manifest iliegality or glaring defect in the order passed by the trial Court, directing impleadment of a party. (4) In the facts of the present case no such infirmity or irregularity appears to have been committed by the Tribunal while passing impugned order. The instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India fails and is hereby dismissed. Sd//- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge IC-