CR-6848-2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Sunil Kumar Rina and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. for the petitioner. DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, has filed the present revision petition assailing order dated 13.08.2026 Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the bus bearing registration No. HR 6585 and the person connected therewith has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the accident did not occur solely on account of any negligence on his part. According to him, the bus bearing registration No. HR consequence whereof h from the opposite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was following that vehicle, thereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside stone pillar. It is, therefore, contended that for complete and effective adjudication of the claim petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. 4. The learned Tribunal has declined impleadment primarily o basis of the material presently available on record. It has noticed that the 2026 Page N: 1 of Total 3 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR Date of Decision: Versus Rina and others HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate (Through VC) for the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. The petitioner, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, has filed the present revision petition assailing order dated 13.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the bus bearing registration No. HR 6585 and the person connected therewith has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the accident did not occur solely on account of any negligence on his part. According to him, the bus bearing registration No. HR-67B-6585 had struck his car from behind, as a consequence whereof his car lost balance and collided with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was following that vehicle, thereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside stone pillar. It is, therefore, contended that the bus and its driver are necessary parties for complete and effective adjudication of the claim petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the impugned order. The learned Tribunal has declined impleadment primarily o basis of the material presently available on record. It has noticed that the 3 Pages IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-6848-2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026 ...Petitioner ...Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Bhuwan Vats, Advocate (Through VC) The petitioner, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, has filed the present revision petition assailing whereby his application under Order I Rule 10 CPC seeking impleadment of the bus bearing registration No. HR-67B 6585 and the person connected therewith has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner specifically pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the accident did not occur solely on account of any negligence on his part. According to him, the bus 6585 had struck his car from behind, as a is car lost balance and collided with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was following that vehicle, thereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside stone the bus and its driver are necessary parties for complete and effective adjudication of the claim petition. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the The learned Tribunal has declined impleadment primarily on the basis of the material presently available on record. It has noticed that the The petitioner, who was respondent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panipat, has filed the present revision petition assailing whereby his application under Order I 67B- had specifically pleaded before the learned Tribunal that the accident did not occur solely on account of any negligence on his part. According to him, the bus 6585 had struck his car from behind, as a is car lost balance and collided with the vehicle coming from the opposite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was following that vehicle, thereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside stone the bus and its driver are necessary parties I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the n the basis of the material presently available on record. It has noticed that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6848-2026 photographs do not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and that the FSL report did not find transfer of paint from the car on the drag marks of the bus. The Tribunal has also taken note of the police report, according to which the bus driver was not found at fault. 5. At the stage of considering an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is required to examine whether the presence of the proposed par necessary, or proper for effective adjudication of the controversy. The petitioner seeks impleadment of the bus on the basis of his own version regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. That version, however, is seriously disputed and is p Tribunal. 6. In the circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference in revis noticed in the impugned order provides a reasonable basis for the Tribunal to decline impleadment at the present juncture. 7. At the same time, the question whether the accident actually occurred in the mann in the occurrence and, if so, whether its driver was negligent, or contributed to the accident, are matters, which ultimately have to be determined on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribu Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treated as a final adjudication of these disputed questions. 8. Consequently, however, clarified that nothing contain present order shall prejudice the petitioner in establishing his defence regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. The petitioner shall be at liberty to lead such oral and documentary evidence as may be permiss support of his plea that the bus bearing registration No. HR involved in the occurrence and that its driver had contributed to the accident. 2026 Page N: 2 of Total 3 photographs do not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and that the FSL report did not find transfer of paint from the car on the drag marks of the ribunal has also taken note of the police report, according to which the bus driver was not found at fault. At the stage of considering an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is required to examine whether the presence of the proposed par necessary, or proper for effective adjudication of the controversy. The petitioner seeks impleadment of the bus on the basis of his own version regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. That version, however, is seriously disputed and is presently not supported by the material relied upon by the In the circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference in revisional jurisdiction at this stage. The material noticed in the impugned order provides a reasonable basis for the Tribunal to decline impleadment at the present juncture. At the same time, the question whether the accident actually occurred in the manner pleaded by the petitioner, whether the bus was involved in the occurrence and, if so, whether its driver was negligent, or contributed to the accident, are matters, which ultimately have to be determined on the basis of the evidence led before the Tribunal. The rejection of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treated as a final adjudication of these disputed questions. Consequently, the present revision petition is dismissed however, clarified that nothing contained in the impugned order, or in the present order shall prejudice the petitioner in establishing his defence regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. The petitioner shall be at liberty to lead such oral and documentary evidence as may be permiss support of his plea that the bus bearing registration No. HR involved in the occurrence and that its driver had contributed to the accident. 3 Pages photographs do not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and that the FSL report did not find transfer of paint from the car on the drag marks of the ribunal has also taken note of the police report, according to which the At the stage of considering an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, the Court is required to examine whether the presence of the proposed par necessary, or proper for effective adjudication of the controversy. The petitioner seeks impleadment of the bus on the basis of his own version regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. That version, however, is seriously resently not supported by the material relied upon by the In the circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal ional jurisdiction at this stage. The material noticed in the impugned order provides a reasonable basis for the Tribunal to At the same time, the question whether the accident actually er pleaded by the petitioner, whether the bus was involved in the occurrence and, if so, whether its driver was negligent, or contributed to the accident, are matters, which ultimately have to be determined on the basis nal. The rejection of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treated as a final adjudication of these the present revision petition is dismissed. It is, ed in the impugned order, or in the present order shall prejudice the petitioner in establishing his defence regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. The petitioner shall be at liberty to lead such oral and documentary evidence as may be permissible in law in support of his plea that the bus bearing registration No. HR-67B-6585 was involved in the occurrence and that its driver had contributed to the accident. photographs do not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and that the FSL report did not find transfer of paint from the car on the drag marks of the ribunal has also taken note of the police report, according to which the At the stage of considering an application under Order I Rule 10 CPC, ty is necessary, or proper for effective adjudication of the controversy. The petitioner seeks impleadment of the bus on the basis of his own version regarding the manner in which the accident occurred. That version, however, is seriously resently not supported by the material relied upon by the In the circumstances, this Court does not find any jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Tribunal ional jurisdiction at this stage. The material noticed in the impugned order provides a reasonable basis for the Tribunal to At the same time, the question whether the accident actually er pleaded by the petitioner, whether the bus was involved in the occurrence and, if so, whether its driver was negligent, or contributed to the accident, are matters, which ultimately have to be determined on the basis nal. The rejection of the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treated as a final adjudication of these . It is, ed in the impugned order, or in the present order shall prejudice the petitioner in establishing his defence regarding the manner of occurrence of the accident. The petitioner shall be at liberty to ible in law in 6585 was involved in the occurrence and that its driver had contributed to the accident. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-6848-2026 9. The learned Tribunal shall consider such evidence, along with the FIR, photographs record, while finally determining the issues relating to negligence, causation and liability. The observations made while deciding the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC shall not be tre 10. It is further clarified that, if during the course of evidence any legally admissible material emerges warranting consideration of the involvement or liability of the bus or its driver, the petitioner shall appropriate relief as may be available to him in law. Any such request shall be considered by the learned Tribunal independently and strictly in accordance with law. 11. The learned Tribunal shall proceed with the matter, which fixed for the remaining evidence of the respondents, without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. 12. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the claim petition the petitioner, the proposed party or any other person. 13. Revision petition stands dismissed in the above terms. 11.09.2026 Yogesh Whether speaking/reasoned: Whether reportable: 2026 Page N: 3 of Total 3 The learned Tribunal shall consider such evidence, along with the FIR, photographs, FSL report, police investigation and other material available on record, while finally determining the issues relating to negligence, causation and liability. The observations made while deciding the application under Order I Rule 10 CPC shall not be treated as conclusive findings on these issues. 10. It is further clarified that, if during the course of evidence any legally admissible material emerges warranting consideration of the involvement or liability of the bus or its driver, the petitioner shall appropriate relief as may be available to him in law. Any such request shall be considered by the learned Tribunal independently and strictly in accordance with The learned Tribunal shall proceed with the matter, which fixed for the remaining evidence of the respondents, without being influenced by any observation contained in this order. Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the claim petition the petitioner, the proposed party or any other person. Revision petition stands dismissed in the above terms. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No 3 Pages The learned Tribunal shall consider such evidence, along with the , FSL report, police investigation and other material available on record, while finally determining the issues relating to negligence, causation and liability. The observations made while deciding the application under Order I Rule ated as conclusive findings on these issues. 10. It is further clarified that, if during the course of evidence any legally admissible material emerges warranting consideration of the involvement or liability of the bus or its driver, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek such appropriate relief as may be available to him in law. Any such request shall be considered by the learned Tribunal independently and strictly in accordance with The learned Tribunal shall proceed with the matter, which is already fixed for the remaining evidence of the respondents, without being influenced by Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the ultimate merits of the claim petition or the respective liability of the petitioner, the proposed party or any other person. Revision petition stands dismissed in the above terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No The learned Tribunal shall consider such evidence, along with the , FSL report, police investigation and other material available on record, while finally determining the issues relating to negligence, causation and liability. The observations made while deciding the application under Order I Rule 10. It is further clarified that, if during the course of evidence any legally admissible material emerges warranting consideration of the involvement or be at liberty to seek such appropriate relief as may be available to him in law. Any such request shall be considered by the learned Tribunal independently and strictly in accordance with is already fixed for the remaining evidence of the respondents, without being influenced by Nothing contained herein shall be construed as an expression of or the respective liability of YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document