VIRENDRA YADAV Vs. RAMESH & ANR.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard.

(2.) The revisionist who is a driver being aggrieved by the orders dated 01.11.2014 and 30.05.2016 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal / Additional District Judge, Court No. 9, Lucknow in claim petition no. 587 of 2013 has questioned the legality of the impugned orders in the instant civil revision. By order dated 01.11.2014 an amendment application filed by the claimant seeking to change the number of offending tractor stated as UP 41 Q 3987 to UP 41 Q 3907 under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 C.P.C. was allowed. The revisionist filed an application for recall of order dated 01.11.2014 alleging therein that he was neither served a copy of the amendment application nor afforded any opportunity before passing the order and as such the order may be recalled. The application for recall of order was rejected on 30.05.2016 by the Tribunal on the ground that the applicant had all the opportunity to defend and no prejudice would be caused even if the amendment was allowed without notice. Thus, the revisional jurisdiction of this Court under Section 115 CPC has been invoked to assail both the orders passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal.

(3.) The maintainability of the civil revision became questionable on account of a direct conflict between two judgements; one rendered on Aug. 07, 1997 by a Full Bench of this Court reported in the case of Kamla Yadav versus Smt. Sushma Devi and others,2004 22 LCD 40 and a later judgement rendered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Versus Manju and others, 2007 2 AWC 1927 which relies upon a five Judge Bench decision rendered by Karnataka High Court in the case of Union of India versus Mysore Paper Mills Ltd. And Ors, 2004 AIR(Kar) 1. It may be noted that at the time when Full Bench judgement was rendered; U.P. Motor Vehicles Rules, 1998 were not framed which came into force on 7.9.1998 and the Full Bench decision also went unnoticed by the Division Bench of this Court at the relevant time when the question of maintainability of appeal/revision against interlocutory orders passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal was once again decided.