MAVJIBHAI JIVABHAI HARIJAN Vs. MUKESH SHAMJI VAGHELA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Nishit Bhalodi, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner is before this Court by filing the Special Civil Application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dtd. 14/6/2021 passed below Exh.12 in MACP no.369 of 2019 by the MACT, Bhuj, which is unjust, arbitrary and illegal since the amendment sought for is for the date of the accident in the claim petition, which was written under the bonafide error.

(2.) Mr. Bhalodi submits that in the claim petition, the date of accident was mentioned as 23/8/2019, which was in accordance to the police papers; while the actual accident had taken place on 22/8/2019. It is submitted by Mr. Bhalodi that the error in the date has cropped up since the information of the accident by way of Janvajog entry was declared at midnight 12:00 hrs. and therefore, the police papers and medical papers reflects the date of accident as 23/8/2019. In fact, the accident should be considered to have been taken place on 22/8/2019 as prior to the midnight. Referring to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Nagappa Vs. Gurudayal Singh, reported in 2003 ACJ 12, Mr. Bhalodi submits that the amendment of pleading should generally be allowed if it does not cause any injustice to other side or change in any cause of action and such amendment should be allowed to determine the real issue between the parties and thus, has prayed for quashing and setting aside order dtd. 14/6/2021 passed below Exh.12 in MACP no.369 of 2019 by the MACT, Bhuj permitting them to amend the date of the accident.

(3.) Countering the same, Mr. Nanavati, learned advocate for the respondent no.3 submitted that the order of the Tribunal does not require any interference since the amendment, as sought for, would change the whole case, which would be contrary to the facts and the evidence which has come on record by way of police and medical documents and thus, the application has been rightly rejected. Mr. Nanavati has also referred to the judgment in the case of Patel Lalbhai Nathabhai Vs. Patel Kanubhai Vitthalbhai & Ors., rendered in Special Civil Application no.5619 of 2014 decided on 19/7/2021 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sadhana Lodh Vs. National Insurance Company & Ors., decided on 24/1/2003 in Civil Appeal no.557 of 2003, to contend that the supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India cannot be invoked and therefore, no Civil Application would lie against the order of the Tribunal.