DILIP KUMAR KALITA Vs. NILIMA SAIKIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE opposite party herein, namely, Miss Nilima Saikia, made an application under Section 166 of the M.V. Act, 1988, seeking compensation for the injuries caused to her in a motor vehicular accident, on 2nd June, 2004, at Nagaon. This application gave rise to M.A.C. Case No. 1492/2004. The learned Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Nagaon, recorded the evidence of the claimant on 7th November, 2005. The claimant was not cross-examined on that day by learned Counsel for the present petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were the registered owner and driver respectively of the offending vehicle and who accordingly stood impleaded as opposite party Nos. 1 and 2 in the said claim proceeding. By order, 7th November, 2005, the learned Tribunal closed the evidence of the claimant and fixed 10th January, 2006 as the date of recording of evidence of the opposite party to the said claim proceedings (i.e., the present petitioners) and also for arguments. The present petitioners, then, filed an application seeking, inter alia, a direction recalling the claimant for cross-examination. This prayer was turned down by the learned Tribunal on 10th January, 2006. Aggrieved by the order, dated 10th January, 2006, aforementioned, the owner and the driver of the offending vehicle has approached this Court with the help of the present petition, made under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 151 thereof, seeking appropriate directions in this regard.

(2.) HEARD Mr. D.K. Katakey, leaned Counsel for the revision petitioners.

(3.) IN short, after the C.P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2002, has come into force, an order passed, during the course of the proceeding, would not be revisable unless the Revisional Court is satisfied that the order, sought to get revised, is one, which, if had been made in favour of the person applying for revision, would have terminated the suit or the proceeding.