R.D. Shukla, J.

1. The revision is directed against the order dated 24.6.1992 of Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal, Neemuch, passed in M.A.C. No. 17 of 1988 whereby the applicant's (respondent's) application under Order 6, Rule 17, Civil Procedure Code and under Order 14, Rule 5, Civil Procedure Code, for amendment in the pleading and for further amendment in the issues has been rejected.

2. The brief history of the case is that the N.A. Nos. 1 and 2 (claimants) filed a claim petition before the learned Tribunal against respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (petitioners here) and respondent No. 3 (N.A. No. 3 here) with the assertions that Sugrabai, daughter of claimants, was working with respondents. The roadroller was driven by respondent No. 3 (N.A. No. 3 here) and because of the rash and negligent driving of the roadroller their daughter, Sugrabai, died after sustaining injuries from the roller. They claimed Rs. 51,000/-.

3. Respondents including applicants here denied the claim and further pleaded that the roadroller was in possession of one contractor, Basantilal, on the basis of an agreement of lease.

4. It appeal's that issues on the same were not framed. Thereafter respondent Nos. 1 an