Arvind Kumar, J. - (1.) THE Petitioner is Respondent No. 2 in the claim petition pending before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Karnal. During proceedings he filed an application for amendment of the written statement, which has been dismissed by dint of impugned order dated 14.3.2011.
(2.) HEARD . It is evident from the perusal of the impugned order that the Petitioner, who is being sued as owner of the offending vehicle, by way of proposed amendment sought to plead that the vehicle was sold to father of Respondent No. 1 by virtue of GPA dated 3.3.2009 and he was not the owner of the offending vehicle at the time of accident. However, his said plea was found to be a somersault for the reasons that he himself took the offending vehicle on super Dari after the accident. Not only this, he did not produce anything to show that the vehicle was sold to father of Respondent No. 1 as his name still figured in the records as registered owner. Further the alleged GPA, on the basis of which the Petitioner tried to put forth his case, was found not in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, the Court below rightly concluded that no case for amendment of the written statement is made out. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned order. The revision petition, being without merit, is accordingly dismissed in limine.;