ORDER

:

Heard Mr.A. Ramakrishna Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner. Perused the record.

2. The present is a civil revision petition which has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 09.08.2024 passed in I.A.No.43 of 2024 in MVOP.No.423 of 2020 by the learned II-Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, at L.B.Nagar.

3. Vide the impugned order, the trial Court has rejected the petition filed by the petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC permitting the petitioner, respondent No.3 before the trial Court, to file additional pleadings by way of additional counter.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the need to file a counter arose upon when, in the investigation of the accident, the investigating officer has submitted a report that perhaps it was the claimant himself who was driving the vehicle and not the driver as has been claimed by the claimant and, therefore, it appears to be a case of swapping of driver so as to ensure receiving of compensation by suppressing the material facts or misleading the Court and to the aforesaid extent, they wanted to bring their pleadings on record by filing and additional counter, which has been refused by the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that though the evidence of the claimant has been recorded in April, 2024, but the matter is still continuing for the recording of further evidence of the applicant and the evidence of the respondents has not yet started. As such, no substantial prejudice would be caused to the interest of the claimant. He further submits that let appropriate time limit be fixed by this Court while disposing of the civil revision petition to show the bona fides of the insurance company that they do not want to protract the proceedings under any circumstances.

6. Having heard the contentions put-forth by the learned counsel for the petitioner, taking into consideration the specific contention raised by him and also that is reflected from the pleadings, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is a fit case where the petitioner can be allowed to submit its additional pleadings by way of additional counter, subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) to the claimant. The matter is now ordered to be fixed on 15.03.2024 for further evidence of the applicant.

7. The impugned order dated 09.08.2024, accordingly, stands set aside. The petitioner under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC stands allowed. The petitioner’s additional pleadings by way of additional counter shall be taken on record and if at all if the claimant is to be examined on appointment of a Commissioner, the entire expenses of the Commissioner as also the counsel for the claimant and other counsels shall be borne by the petitioner/insurance company. Let further evidence of the claimant, if any, be concluded within a period of 30 days from the next date of hearing. Simultaneously, the evidence of the other witnesses who can appear before the Court can go uninterruptedly and the trial Court is expected to conclude the trial as early as possible considering the fact that the MVOP itself is now pending for more than five years which itself is a substantial pleading.

8. The civil revision petition accordingly stands disposed of.

There shall be no order as to costs.

Consequently, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall stand closed.

__________________

P.SAM KOSHY, J

28.02.2025 Note:-

CC in three days.

B/o Lrkm