POWER MECH PROJECTOR PVT LTD Vs. MURLIDHAR BAIRAGI S/O BHUJBAL DAS @ UJJAWAL DAS; KISHOR STEPHAN S/O STIPAL L

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) It is prayed that respondent No.2 is a formal party and even remained ex parte before the Court below while hearing MJC No.2/2009 (Power Mech Projector Private Limited Vs. Murlidhar Bairagi & Anr.) whereby and whereunder the Court below had dismissed the application filed by the petitioner/applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter the 'Code') and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 on 11.10.2010.

(3.) On behalf of the petitioner it is further submitted that respondent No.2 also remained ex parte in Claim Case No. 50/2007 though the Claims Tribunal had passed award dated 22.9.2007 against the present petitioner and respondent No.2 jointly and severally but respondent No.2 was the Driver of the vehicle. His whereabouts were not known and as a owner of the vehicle, he is primarily responsible to satisfy the award, hence, the matter may be heard without representation of respondent No.2 as his whereabouts are not known. On due consideration, as prayed, the matter is heard finally even without representation of respondent No.2.