IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-2062-2024 (O&M)

Date of decision: 14.10.2025 Hajar Khan @ Hajarkhan ...Petitioner Versus Hanif Khan and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL Present: Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

****

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

CM-14269-CII-2025

1. This is an application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 read with Section 151 CPC for restoration of the case and recalling of order dated

03.07.2025.

2. For the reasons stated in the application which is duly supported by an affidavit, the present application is allowed and order dated 03.07.2025 is recalled and the main case is restored to its original number and is taken on Board today itself for final disposal.

Main case

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20.11.2023 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram vide which the application filed by respondent No.3 for impleading the driver, owner and insurer of vehicle bearing No.HR-58A-4291 has been allowed.

2. On 09.10.2025, this Court had passed the following order:-

“Present:- Mr. Divij Datt, Advocate for the applicant-

petitioner.

Mr. Sanjeev Kodan, Advocate for respondent No.3-Insurance Company.

***

Learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is dominus litis and it is his choice to implead the parties against whom he is seeking relief. It is further submitted that the petitioner cannot be forced to implead the persons with whom he does not want to litigate.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as “Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, reported as 2015(9) SCC 273, to submit that in the case of composite negligence, the petitioner is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several and that in case other joint tort feasors are not impleaded, then, it is open for the joint tort feasor who has been made a party, after payment of the compensation, if so desires, to proceed against the other joint tort feasors in independent proceedings after the passing of the decree or award. It is submitted that by virtue of the impugned order, the claim petition filed by the petitioner in the year 2019 is being unnecessary delayed.

Learned counsel for respondent No.3 prays for an adjournment to get instructions in the matter.

Adjourned to 14.10.2025.

To be taken up in the urgent list.

October 09, 2025”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments raised on 09.10.2025 and has further highlighted the relevant portion of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. & Ors.”, reported as 2015(9) SCC 273 which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“What emerges from the aforesaid discussion is as follows:

(i) In the case of composite negligence, Plaintiff/claimant is entitled to sue both or any one of the joint tort feasors and to recover the entire compensation as liability of joint tort feasors is joint and several.

(ii) In the case of composite negligence, apportionment of compensation between two tort feasors vis a vis the Plaintiff/claimant is not permissible. He can recover at his option whole damages from any of them.

(iii) In case all the joint tort feasors have been impleaded and evidence is sufficient, it is open to the court/tribunal to determine inter se extent of composite negligence of the drivers. However, determination of the extent of negligence between the joint tort feasors is only for the purpose of their inter se liability so that one may recover the sum from the other after making whole of payment to the Plaintiff/claimant to the extent it has satisfied the liability of the other. In case both of them have been impleaded and the apportionment/extent