1. The case has been listed in default for non-payment of fresh P.F. for non-applicants Nos. 2. 5 & 6. However, it appears that stay has been granted in this revision by order dated 5.8.1994, whereby the proceedings before the Claims Tribunal have been stayed. In view of such a long lapse of time, arguments on the revision are heard on merits. 2. It appears that the petitioner is the registered owner as disclosed from the copy of the cover-note dated 19.2.1991. In view of the above, his prayer for deletion of his name from the array of non-applicants was rejected with the liberty to him to raise the objection as above in the written-statement. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that liability under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is likely to be fastened, in view of the said order. 4. After considering the contentions as above, this revision stands disposed of with the direction to the Tribunal that the petitioner shall be granted an opportunity to file his written-statement and shall also be afforded an opportunity of hearing and to produce documents in support of his contention that he is not the owner of the offending vehicle, before an order under section 140 of the Motor Vehicles Act is passed.