CR-6848-2026 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C R-6848-2026 DDate of Decision: 11.09.2026 Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Rina and otherrs ...Respondents CORAM: H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G UPTA Present: MMr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate (Throough VC) foor the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTATA, J. Thhe petitioner, who was responddent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claimms Tribunal, Panipat, has filed thhe present revision petition assailing order dated 113.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), wheereby his application under Ordder I Rule 10 CPC sseeking impleadment of the buus bearing registration No. HR-667B-6585 and the pperson connected therewith hass been dismissed. 2. Leearned counsel for the petitionner submits that the petitioner had specifically pleeaded before the learned Tribu nal that the accident did not occur solely on accoount of any negligence on hiss part. According to him, the bus bearing registtration No. HR-67B-6585 had struck his car from behind, asa a consequence wwhereof his car lost balance annd collided with the vehicle comming from the oppoosite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was followwing that vehicle, tthereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside sttone pillar. It is, theerefore, contended that the bus and its driver are necessary parrties for complete aand effective adjudication of thee claim petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel foor the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

4. Thhe learned Tribunal has declinned impleadment primarily on the basis of the material presently available o n record. It has noticed that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of Total 33 Pages CR-6848-2026 photographs ddo not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and thatt the FSL report didd not find transfer of paint fromm the car on the drag marks off the bus. The Tribunal has also taken note of the p olice report, according to whichh the bus driver wass not found at fault. 5. Att the stage of considering an ap plication under Order I Rule 10 CPC,C the Court is reequired to examine whether thee presence of the proposed party is necessary, or pproper for effective adjudicationn of the controversy. The petitiooner seeks impleaddment of the bus on the basiss of his own version regarding the manner in whhich the accident occurred. T hat version, however, is serioously disputed and is presently not supported byy the material relied upon by the Tribunal. 6. Inn the circumstances, this Court ddoes not find any jurisdictional errore or material irrregularity in the exercise of ddiscretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference in revisional jurisd iction at this stage. The mateerial noticed in thee impugned order provides a reeasonable basis for the Tribunaal to decline impleaadment at the present juncture.

7. Att the same time, the questioon whether the accident actuually occurred in the manner pleaded by the petitiooner, whether the bus was involved in the occurreence and, if so, whether its driv er was negligent, or contributed to the accident, aare matters, which ultimately hhave to be determined on the basisb of the evidencce led before the Tribunal. Thee rejection of the application unnder Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treaated as a final adjudication of thhese disputed questtions. 8. Coonsequently, the present revvision petition is dismissed. Itt is, however, clarrified that nothing contained iin the impugned order, or in the present order shall prejudice the petitioner inn establishing his defence regardding the manner o f occurrence of the accident. TThe petitioner shall be at liberty to lead such oraal and documentary evidence as may be permissible in laww in support of hi s plea that the bus bearing rregistration No. HR-67B-6585 was involved in thee occurrence and that its driver hhad contributed to the accident. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of Total 33 Pages CR-6848-2026

9. Thhe learned Tribunal shall consi der such evidence, along with the FIR, photograpphs, FSL report, police investigattion and other material availablee on record, while ffinally determining the issues reelating to negligence, causation and liability. The o bservations made while decidingg the application under Order I RuleR 10 CPC shall noot be treated as conclusive findi ngs on these issues. 10. It is furthher clarified that, if during thhe course of evidence any leggally admissible maaterial emerges warranting connsideration of the involvement or liability of thee bus or its driver, the petitionner shall be at liberty to seek suchs appropriate reelief as may be available to himm in law. Any such request shalll be considered by the learned Tribunal independeently and strictly in accordance withw law. 11. Thhe learned Tribunal shall proceeed with the matter, which is alreeady fixed for the reemaining evidence of the responndents, without being influencedd by any observatioon contained in this order. 12. N othing contained herein shall be construed as an expressionn of opinion on thee ultimate merits of the claim ppetition or the respective liabilitty of the petitioner,, the proposed party or any otheer person. 13. Reevision petition stands dismissedd in the above terms. 11.09.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whetherr speaking/reasoned: Yees/No Whetherr reportable: Yees/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document Page N: 3 of Total 33 Pages

CR-6848-2026 IN THEE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C R-6848-2026 DDate of Decision: 11.09.2026 Sunil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Rina and otherrs ...Respondents CORAM: H ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G UPTA Present: MMr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate (Throough VC) foor the petitioner. **** DEEPAK GUPTATA, J. Thhe petitioner, who was responddent No.1 before the learned Motor Accident Claimms Tribunal, Panipat, has filed thhe present revision petition assailing order dated 113.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), wheereby his application under Ordder I Rule 10 CPC sseeking impleadment of the buus bearing registration No. HR-667B-6585 and the pperson connected therewith hass been dismissed. 2. Leearned counsel for the petitionner submits that the petitioner had specifically pleeaded before the learned Tribu nal that the accident did not occur solely on accoount of any negligence on hiss part. According to him, the bus bearing registtration No. HR-67B-6585 had struck his car from behind, asa a consequence wwhereof his car lost balance annd collided with the vehicle comming from the oppoosite direction. The motorcycle of the victim, which was followwing that vehicle, tthereafter hit the said vehicle and ultimately the roadside sttone pillar. It is, theerefore, contended that the bus and its driver are necessary parrties for complete aand effective adjudication of thee claim petition. 3. I have heard learned counsel foor the petitioner and perused the impugned order.

4. Thhe learned Tribunal has declinned impleadment primarily on the basis of the material presently available o n record. It has noticed that the YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 1 of Total 33 Pages CR-6848-2026 photographs ddo not indicate that the bus had hit the petitioner's car and thatt the FSL report didd not find transfer of paint fromm the car on the drag marks off the bus. The Tribunal has also taken note of the p olice report, according to whichh the bus driver wass not found at fault. 5. Att the stage of considering an ap plication under Order I Rule 10 CPC,C the Court is reequired to examine whether thee presence of the proposed party is necessary, or pproper for effective adjudicationn of the controversy. The petitiooner seeks impleaddment of the bus on the basiss of his own version regarding the manner in whhich the accident occurred. T hat version, however, is serioously disputed and is presently not supported byy the material relied upon by the Tribunal. 6. Inn the circumstances, this Court ddoes not find any jurisdictional errore or material irrregularity in the exercise of ddiscretion by the learned Tribunal warranting interference in revisional jurisd iction at this stage. The mateerial noticed in thee impugned order provides a reeasonable basis for the Tribunaal to decline impleaadment at the present juncture.

7. Att the same time, the questioon whether the accident actuually occurred in the manner pleaded by the petitiooner, whether the bus was involved in the occurreence and, if so, whether its driv er was negligent, or contributed to the accident, aare matters, which ultimately hhave to be determined on the basisb of the evidencce led before the Tribunal. Thee rejection of the application unnder Order I Rule 10 CPC cannot, therefore, be treaated as a final adjudication of thhese disputed questtions. 8. Coonsequently, the present revvision petition is dismissed. Itt is, however, clarrified that nothing contained iin the impugned order, or in the present order shall prejudice the petitioner inn establishing his defence regardding the manner o f occurrence of the accident. TThe petitioner shall be at liberty to lead such oraal and documentary evidence as may be permissible in laww in support of hi s plea that the bus bearing rregistration No. HR-67B-6585 was involved in thee occurrence and that its driver hhad contributed to the accident. YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Page N: 2 of Total 33 Pages CR-6848-2026

9. Thhe learned Tribunal shall consi der such evidence, along with the FIR, photograpphs, FSL report, police investigattion and other material availablee on record, while ffinally determining the issues reelating to negligence, causation and liability. The o bservations made while decidingg the application under Order I RuleR 10 CPC shall noot be treated as conclusive findi ngs on these issues. 10. It is furthher clarified that, if during thhe course of evidence any leggally admissible maaterial emerges warranting connsideration of the involvement or liability of thee bus or its driver, the petitionner shall be at liberty to seek suchs appropriate reelief as may be available to himm in law. Any such request shalll be considered by the learned Tribunal independeently and strictly in accordance withw law. 11. Thhe learned Tribunal shall proceeed with the matter, which is alreeady fixed for the reemaining evidence of the responndents, without being influencedd by any observatioon contained in this order. 12. N othing contained herein shall be construed as an expressionn of opinion on thee ultimate merits of the claim ppetition or the respective liabilitty of the petitioner,, the proposed party or any otheer person. 13. Reevision petition stands dismissedd in the above terms. 11.09.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whetherr speaking/reasoned: Yees/No Whetherr reportable: Yees/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.09.11 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document Page N: 3 of Total 33 Pages