KRISHAN REDDY Vs. K RAMULAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against the order dated 10-4-1991 made in I.A. No. 422 of 1988 filed in O.P. No. 89 of 1986 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal (Additional District Judge), Maheboobnagar, for short Act, impleading the petitioner herein as respondent No. 3, in O.P. No. 89 of 1986.

(2.) Few facts which are necessary for the disposal of the revision petition are: Husband of the first respondent father of the second respondent and son of the third respondent, namely, one late Chennaiah met with an accident on 7-1-1986 and consequently died on account of rash and negligent driving of the driver of the tractor bearing registration No. APM 3098. Respondents 1 to 3 filed O.P. No. 89 of 1986 against respondents 4 and 5 in the ACT, Although the respondents 4 and 5 who were respondents 1 and 2 respectively in O.P. No. 89 of 1986 were served with the notice, they remained unrepresented. Therefore the ACT on 27-2-1987 passed an ex parte award against the respondents 4 and 5. After the ACT passed the award on 27-2-1987 the respondents 4 and 5 filed an application for setting aside the ex parte award made on 27-2-1987 on the ground that they are not the owners of the vehicle involved in the accident. The said application was allowed and ex parte award was set aside by the ACT. There afterwards the claimants-petitioners came to know that the real owner of the vehicle involved in the accident is one Krishna Reddy who is the petitioner in this revision petition. Therefore the claimants filed an application, i.e., I.A. No. 422 of 1988 in O.P. No. 89 of 1986 under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking permission of the ACT to implead him as respondent No. 3 in the claim petition. The respondents 4 and 5 herein who are respondents 1 and 2 in the ACT did not file any counter to the application of the claimants made under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The proposed respondent the petitioner herein filed a counter mainly contending that Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure has no application to the proceedings initiated under the Motor Vehicles Act and the application is barred by limitation. The ACT after hearing the learned counsel for both the parties and considering the rival claims of the parties negatived the contentions of the revision petitioner and allowed I.A. No. 422 of 1988 permitting the claimants to implead the revision petitioner as respondent No. 3 in O.P. No. 89 of 1986. Hence this revision by the respondent No. 3.

(3.) The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner was heard.