PURAN CHAND Vs. RIMPY SHARMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has made a statement today that respondent no.4, i.e. Partap Goel son of Puran Chand, is not a contesting respondent and therefore service upon him of the notice issued, may be dispensed with.

(2.) Ordered accordingly on the aforesaid statement, with it made clear that, naturally, any order passed in this petition will not be binding upon respondent no.4. By this petition, the petitioners challenge the order of the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula, dtd. 13/12/2016, by which their application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC, seeking to implead one Kashmir Singh son of Malook Singh and Jaki Ahmed son of Hassinuddin as respondents in the claim petition, has been rejected.

(3.) The contention of the petitioner is that their father, the late Puran Chand, having sold the vehicle stated to be involved in the accident, firstly to Kashmir Singh and he thereafter having sold it to Jaki Ahmed, and Jaki Ahmed eventually having taken the vehicle on sapurdari in the criminal proceedings initiated against the driver of the tractor, obviously he is the person who owns the tractor and therefore is a necessary party to be impleaded as a respondent.