CR/6848/2026 of SUNIL KUMAR Vs RINA AND OTHERS on 11 September 2026

IN THE

Sunil Kumar Rina and other

CORAM:

H

Present: M

fo

DEEPAK GUPTA

Th Accident Claim order dated 1 Rule 10 CPC s 6585 and the p

2. Le specifically ple solely on acco bearing regist consequence w from the oppo that vehicle, t pillar. It is, the for complete a

3. I impugned ord

4. Th basis of the

Page N: 1 of Total 3 E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND

C D

Versus rs

ON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK G Mr. Bhuwan Vats, Advocate (Thro or the petitioner. **** TA, J. he petitioner, who was respond ms Tribunal, Panipat, has filed th 13.08.2026 (Annexure P-6), whe seeking impleadment of the bu person connected therewith has earned counsel for the petition eaded before the learned Tribu ount of any negligence on his tration No. HR-67B-6585 had whereof his car lost balance an osite direction. The motorcycle thereafter hit the said vehicle erefore, contended that the bus and effective adjudication of the have heard learned counsel fo er. he learned Tribunal has declin material presently available o

HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

R-6848-2026 Date of Decision: 11.09.2026

...Petitioner

...Respondents UPTA ough VC) dent No.1 before the learned M he present revision petition assa ereby his application under Ord us bearing registration No. HR-6 s been dismissed. ner submits that the petitioner nal that the accident did not o s part. According to him, the struck his car from behind, a nd collided with the vehicle com of the victim, which was follow and ultimately the roadside st and its driver are necessary par e claim petition. or the petitioner and perused ned impleadment primarily on n record. It has noticed that

otor iling der I 67B- had ccur bus as a ming wing tone rties the the the photographs d FSL report did bus. The Tribu bus driver was

5. At the Court is re necessary, or p seeks implead manner in wh disputed and Tribunal.

6. In or material ir warranting in noticed in the decline implea

7. At occurred in th in the occurre the accident, a of the evidenc Order I Rule 1 disputed quest

8. Co however, clar present order the manner o lead such ora support of hi involved in the

Page N: 2 of Total 3 do not indicate that the bus had d not find transfer of paint from nal has also taken note of the p s not found at fault. t the stage of considering an ap equired to examine whether the proper for effective adjudication dment of the bus on the basis hich the accident occurred. T is presently not supported by n the circumstances, this Court d rregularity in the exercise of d terference in revisional jurisd e impugned order provides a re adment at the present juncture. t the same time, the questio e manner pleaded by the petitio ence and, if so, whether its driv are matters, which ultimately h ce led before the Tribunal. The 0 CPC cannot, therefore, be trea tions. onsequently, the present rev rified that nothing contained i shall prejudice the petitioner in f occurrence of the accident. T al and documentary evidence s plea that the bus bearing r e occurrence and that its driver h hit the petitioner's car and that m the car on the drag marks of olice report, according to which plication under Order I Rule 10 C e presence of the proposed par n of the controversy. The petitio s of his own version regarding hat version, however, is serio y the material relied upon by does not find any jurisdictional e discretion by the learned Trib iction at this stage. The mate easonable basis for the Tribuna on whether the accident actu oner, whether the bus was invo er was negligent, or contribute have to be determined on the b e rejection of the application un ated as a final adjudication of th vision petition is dismissed. It in the impugned order, or in n establishing his defence regard The petitioner shall be at libert as may be permissible in law registration No. HR-67B-6585 had contributed to the accident

t the f the h the CPC, ty is oner the ously the error unal erial al to ually lved d to basis nder hese t is, the ding y to w in was .

9. Th FIR, photograp record, while f liability. The o 10 CPC shall no

10. It is furth admissible ma liability of the appropriate re considered by law.

11. Th fixed for the re any observatio

12. N opinion on the the petitioner,

13. Re

11.09.2026 Yogesh

Whether

Whether

Page N: 3 of Total 3 he learned Tribunal shall consi phs, FSL report, police investigat finally determining the issues re bservations made while deciding ot be treated as conclusive findi her clarified that, if during th aterial emerges warranting con e bus or its driver, the petition elief as may be available to him the learned Tribunal independe he learned Tribunal shall procee emaining evidence of the respon on contained in this order. othing contained herein shall e ultimate merits of the claim p , the proposed party or any othe evision petition stands dismissed

r speaking/reasoned:

Ye r reportable:

Ye der such evidence, along with tion and other material available elating to negligence, causation g the application under Order I R ngs on these issues. he course of evidence any leg nsideration of the involvemen ner shall be at liberty to seek s m in law. Any such request shal ently and strictly in accordance w ed with the matter, which is alre ndents, without being influenced be construed as an expression petition or the respective liabilit er person. d in the above terms. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE es/No

es/No

the e on and Rule gally t or such ll be with eady d by n of ty of