Partly allowed

Sant Nirankari Mandal v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Sept 2010CR/5814/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Civil Revision where the High Court allowed the petitioner one opportunity to pay costs and comply with a lower Tribunal order to enable impleadment in a motor accident case, setting aside the dismissal for non-payment.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner granted one opportunity to pay Rs.5000/- costs. If paid by 17.09.2010, the dismissal order set aside for impleadment application.

Sant Nirankari Mandal Vs Inderjit… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

¶2

Civil Revision No.5814 of 2010(O & M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.5814 of 2010(O & M) Date of Decision:10.09.2010

¶5

Sant Nirankari Mandal

....petitioner

Versus

Inderjit Kaur & Ors.

.....respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Present: Mr.Joginder Sukhija,Advocate for the petitioner

¶14

¶15

RAKESH KUMAR GARG J.(ORAL):

¶16

By way of this petition, the petitioner who alleges itself as the owner of offending vehicle bearing registration No.DL-8C-L-2433 has challenged the order dated 31.07.2010 passed by MACT, Amritsar, whereby its application to implead it as respondent in MACT No.103 of 2008 titled as “Inderjit Kaur & ors. vs.Baba Hardev Singh & anr.”, has been dismissed for non-compliance of the order dated 15.06.2010, whereby petitioner was ordered to be impleaded as respondent subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/-.

¶17

As per the averments made in this petition, the claimants/respondents filed a claim petition against Baba Hardev Singh and Sh.Gobind Singh, alleging that Swinder Singh s/o Gurdial Singh had died in a motor accident on 07.04.2007 with Ambassador Car No.DL-8CL2433, owned by Baba Hardev Singh and driven by Sh.Gobind Singh.

¶18

An application was filed under Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC for striking out the names of respondents Baba Hardev Singh and Gobind

¶19

Civil Revision No.5814 of 2010(O & M)

¶20

¶21

Singh submitting that Baba Hardev Singh was not the owner of the aforesaid vehicle nor Gobind Singh was the driver of the said vehicle.

¶22

The aforesaid application was contested by the claimants stating that from the information received from the Vehicle Registering Authority, it was confirmed that the alleged vehicle involved in the accident stands registered in the name of Sant Nirankari Mandal(petitioner). However, the aforesaid application was rejected by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.05.2010 observing that the petitioner-society is being run by Baba Hardev Singh and as per the information supplied by the authorities, respondent No.2 is the driver of the said car. Be that as it may, the aforesaid order dated 11.05.2010 is not being challenged before this Court.

¶23

Petitioner moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC submitting therein that the alleged vehicle is owned by the petitioner and is duly insured with M/s New India Assurance Company Ltd.at 58-59, Sector 16, Noida, Gautam Budha Nagar-201301 (Utttar Pradesh), and therefore, petitioner, being the owner of the vehicle be impleaded as respondent substituting the name of Baba Hardev Singh. The aforesaid application of the petitioner was allowed by the Tribunal vide its order dated 15.06.2010 subject to payment of costs of Rs.5000/- and the case was adjourned to 31.07.2010 for payment of costs and filing of amended petition.

¶24

Instead of paying the costs on 31.07.2010, the petitioner moved an application before the Tribunal for waiving or remitting the costs of Rs.5000/- as imposed vide order dated 15.06.2010. Since the petitioner had failed to make the payment of costs which was a condition precedent for impleading the petitioner, the Tribunal vide order dated 31.07.2010, dismissed the application filed by the petitioner for impleadment.

¶25

Aggrieved from the aforesaid order, the petitioners are

¶26

Civil Revision No.5814 of 2010(O & M)

¶27

¶28

before this Court in the present revision petition.

¶29

At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted before this Court that if granted one opportunity the petitioner is ready to comply with the order of the Tribunal dated 15.06.2010. The matter of imposing the costs being discretionary and keeping in view the settled principle of law that provisions of Civil Procedure Code are hand maid for administration of justice, I allow the prayer of the petitioner and grant them one opportunity to comply with the order dated 15.06.2010.

¶30

Let the petitioner appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed i.e.17.09.2010 and tender the costs as per order dated 15.06.2010 and in case, the costs are tendered, the order dated 31.07.2010 to the extent of dismissing the application of the petitioner under Order 1 Rule 10 for impleadment shall be deemed to be set aside and the Tribunal shall proceed further in accordance with law.

¶31

Revision petition is disposed of.

¶32

(RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE

¶33

neenu

¶34

10.09.2010

Sant Nirankari Mandal v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sant Nirankari Mandal v. Inderjit Kaur and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmeet Kaur and Another Vs Saroj Aggarwal and Another

Binder Singh Vs Stat of Haryana

Rajesh Vij Vs Sukhbir Kaur and Ors.

Varinder Kumar,Proprietor of M/Svk Bro Vs Pseb and Ors.

Kailash Wati Vs Pseb etc.

M/S Amandeep Rice and General Mills Vs Pseb etc.