- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 21499 OF 2025 (GM-AC) BETWEEN: 1. SRI.G.M.LOKESH KUMAR S/O LATE G.K. MALLAIAH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS R/AT NO. 15, JARAGANAHALLI, RAJIV GANDHI ROAD, K.P. MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU 560 078. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. R. SURENDRA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.G.S SUSHEELLAMMA W/O. LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS Digitally signed by VANAMALA N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 2. SRI. C. NITHISH S/O LATE CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS BOTH ARE RESIDING AT NO. 63, NEAR CHOWDAMMA TEMPLE, CHAKKERE, MALUR HOBLI, CHANNAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA-562160 3. SRI. RAGHAVENDRA @ RAAGU S/O SHIVARAMEGOWDA R/AT NO.39, 4TH CROSS, GOVINDAPPA LAYOUT, JARAGANAHALLI, WARD NO.186 BENGALURU-560078. …RESPONDENTS THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.06.2025 PASSED BY THE XXIV ADDL 10 SMALL CAUSES JUDGE AND MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIMS TRIBUNAL AND A.C.J.M BENGALURU IN M.V.C NO. 6565/2023 REJECTING THE SAID APPLICATION FILED BY THE PETITIONER UNDER ORDER I RULE 10(2) R/W SEC. 151 OF THE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEEKING STRIKE OUT HIS NAME FROM THE PETITION HEREIN PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD ORAL ORDER The petitioner is brought on record after the demise of his father in the proceedings in MVC No.6565/2023 on the file of the XXIV Addl. Small Causes Judge and Motor Vehicles Accident Claims Tribunal and ACJM [SCCH-26] Bengaluru. The petitioner is aggrieved by the Tribunal's order dated 10.06.2025 [Annexure-A], and the Tribunal, by the impugned order, has rejected the petitioner's application under Order I Rule 10 (2) of CPC to strike out his name from the array of parties. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 2. The petitioner relies upon a statement by one of the respondents on who the owner of the vehicle was as of the date of the accident to assert that he should not continue as a party to the proceedings. The Tribunal has reasoned thus in rejecting the application: Perused the records. Ex.P.18 produced by the petitioner in the vehicle particulars extracted issued by the RTO, Jayanagar, Bangalore, it disclose that on 21.11.2024, the respondent No.1 Sri G.K.Mallaiah is the owner of the Car bearing Reg. No.KA-05-MA-3435 and same is standing in the name of deceased respondent No.1. The respondent No.1 (a) has produced the documents like Form No.29, Delivery note, Form No.30, Share Certificate, Transfer of Insurance, Authorization Letter, but as per the said documents, the vehicle not transferred in the name of respondent No.2 in accordance with law within time. According to the document in Ex.P.18 the respondent No.1 is the owner of the offending Car at the time of accident. Hence, the admissions of respondent No.2 is contrary to the Ex.P.18. Learned counsel for respondent No.1(a) has relied the citation in 2010 (4) SCC 753 is not applicable to this case on hand in facts and circumstances. So, the respondent No.1(a) has not made out sufficient grounds to allow the IA. Hence, I am of the opinion that, the application filed by the respondent No.1(a) seeking for strike out from this petition is liable to be rejected. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 3. Sri R.Surendra, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in view of the admission in the written statement by the current owner of the vehicle, the Tribunal could not have rejected the petitioner’s application and in elaboration, the learned counsel submits that the petitioner’s father, Sri G.K.Mallaiah, had transferred the vehicle as of the date of the accident and that is borne out by different documents. 4. This Court must observe that the Tribunal's observations are in the light of the petitioner's request in an interim application for his name to be struck of from the array of parties, but the Tribunal while deciding on the liability will have to consider the evidence that is let-in and the law that holds the field on this aspect. There cannot be a foreclosure of this aspect at this stage. Hence, with liberty to the petitioner to contend that no liability - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:35182 WP No. 21499 of 2025 can be fastened on him notwithstanding the observations in the impugned order, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE SA List No.: 2 Sl No.: 8