Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Smt. Sarita Wife Of Vijendra Singh vs Ashish Kumar Son Of Suresh Kumar on 23 October, 2018
Author: Ashok Kumar Gaur
Bench: Ashok Kumar Gaur
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writs No. 22169/2018
1. Smt. Sarita Wife Of Vijendra Singh, Aged About 38 Years,
Resident Of Ghumansar Kla Tehsil Surajgarh District
Jhunjhunu.
2. Prateek Son Of Vijendra Singh, Aged About 7 Years,
Natural Guardian Mother Smt. Sarita Petitioner No. 1,
Resident Of Ghumansar Kla Tehsil Surajgarh District
Jhunjhunu.
3. Ranveer Singh Son Of Chandgiram, Aged About 53 Years,
Resident Of Ghumansar Kla Tehsil Surajgarh District
Jhunjhunu.
4. Smt. Reshami Devi Wife Of Shri Ranveer Singh, Aged
About 48 Years, Resident Of Ghumansar Kla Tehsil
Surajgarh District Jhunjhunu.
----Petitioners
Versus
1. Ashish Kumar Son Of Suresh Kumar, Resident Of Shahpur
Tehsil Buhana District Jhunjhunu Vehicle No. Rj-10-Cb-
2223 Bolero Owner And Driver
2. Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. Through Branch
Manager, State Bank Of India Ke Uper, Station Road,
Jhunjhunu. Vehicle No. Rj-10-Cb-2223 Insurer Of Bolero
(Vehicle Insurance Cover Note No. 9730973028 Insured
Date 26.6.13 To 24.6.2014)
----Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ved Pal Shastri, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.P. Vijay, Adv.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR GAUR
Order
23/10/2018
The instant petition has been filed by the claimants
challenging order dt.30.06.2018 wherein application filed by the (2 of 3) [CW-22169/2018] Insurance Company under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC has been allowed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in response to the application filed by the Insurance Company, the claimants had filed reply and they have objected to the amendment sought in the claim petition.
Learned counsel has submitted that once the Insurance Company had filed written statement and a particular defence was taken, the permission to amend the pleadings will change the nature of case.
Per contra, Mr. R.P. Vijay, counsel for the respondent- Insurance Company has submitted that order dt.30.06.2018 has been passed by considering the contents of application filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. Learned counsel has submitted that both the counsel were present on 30.06.2018 and it cannot be said that the counsel for the claimant was not given opportunity of hearing. Learned counsel has further submitted that the Court below had found that the stage of the case was only upto framing of issues and as such the technical plea of defence taken by the Insurance Company could even otherwise be taken by the Insurance Company and further such pleadings taken in the amended application would facilitate the early disposal of the case.
I have heard counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record.
This Court finds that the order dt.30.06.2018 only makes a reference of plea taken by the Insurance Company but objection taken by the claimants is not taken into account.
Accordingly, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the MACT, Jhunjhunu to afford an opportunity of hearing to both the parties/counsel to address on the application (3 of 3) [CW-22169/2018] filed under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. The Court below after hearing both the counsel will pass a fresh order, as per law. It is made clear that any observation made by this Court will not affect the rights of the parties involved in the case before the Court below.
(ASHOK KUMAR GAUR),J A.Kumar/61 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)