FARUKBHAI MOHMADBHAI SURTI Vs. MINOR AJAY RAVINDRAKUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned advocate for the appellants was heard at length in this appeal. The learned Advocate Mr. R. H. Mehta now states that he withdraws this appeal. In view of this this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Looking to the facts of the case the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.

(2.) Before parting with this case I would like to observe here that initially the application for compensation was filed by the applicant against the owner of the scooter and his minor son who was driving the scooter at the time of the incident. The minor had naturally no licence to drive the scooter. Thereafter purshis Ex. 34 was given by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that not the minor opponent but one another fellow was driving the scooter at the time of this incident and therefore he was a necessary party to the application for compensation. Thereafter application Ex. 36 was filed by the claimant-petitioner for joining the said person as opponent No. 3. On this application the learned advocate for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 made an endorsement no objection. No endorsement of the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company was obtained below this application. The learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Special) at Narol passed the following order below this application:

(3.) A copy of this order should be sent to the principal Judge City Civil Court all the Judges of the City Civil Court and all the District Judges including the Joint Judges and Assistant Judges. (SBS)