JUDGMENT Hon’ble S.K. Singh, J.—Heard Sri Arun Kumar Shukla, learned Advocate in support of this revision. 2. Challenge is to the order dated 9.2.2007 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal by which application moved by the revisionist under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act has been rejected. 3. As the claim petition is pending since 2003, about four years has already passed, keeping in mind the facts and details which will be noticed at its proper place and looking into the nature of the order and the dispute as has been raised, this Court is of the view that keeping the matter pending for final disposal after getting record and appearance of opposite parties will detain the finality of the proceedings and that may cause injury to the claimant and thus after noticing the facts in brief this Court proposes to dispose of this revision subject to right reserved to any party claiming himself aggrieved to move appropriate application. 4. Claim petition was filed in the year 2003 which has been numbered as M.A.C. No. 386 of 2003. Claim of the applicant is that the owner of the vehicle, apart from filing written statement is not co-operating in the proceedings as no evidence was given and, therefore, on the facts and circumstances and in view of the rights so provided under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act the applicant moved application before the Tribunal dated 27.7.2004 by which permission was sought to lead evidence and to get himself participated in the proceedings. Claim is that although no written order was passed but the tribunal permitted the revisionist to participate in the proceedings and to cross-examine the witnesses of the claimant and at the same, time examine his own witnesses and thus at the stage of final hearing, rejection of the application of the revisionist by the impugned order is to cause injury to the revisionist. In support of the submission that if the owner of the vehicle is in collusion with the claimant or otherwise also he is not contesting the proceedings then the insurance company has a right to participate in the proceedings, reliance has been placed on the judgment reported it a in 2007 (1) T.A.C. 233 (Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. v. Narayanan Nair and others). 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 6. 5. In view of the aforesaid, this Court has examined the matter. 6. Record as has been placed before this Court demonstrates that apart from filing the written statement the owner of the vehicle has neither cross examined the witness of the claimant nor has given any evidence and on the other hand on the application moved by the applicant on 27.7.2004 although there appears to be no written order by the Tribunal but the paper filed by the revisionist (Annexure No. 6 to the affidavit) demonstrates that on 18.8.2004 and 2.9.2004 the revisionist cross examined the witness of the claimant and at the same time on 3.5.2006 (Annexure No. 2 to the affidavit) examined his own witness namely Ajai Sharma. Order sheet which has been filed along with affidavit demonstrates that two documents filed by the revisionist was also taken on record. 7. In view of the aforesaid, it is clear that right from 2004 till the end revisionist was permitted to participate in the proceedings and he cross-examined the claimant witnesses namely Kamesh Sharma and examined his own witness and filed documents also. More than two years has already passed during which the revisionist has been participating in the proceedings which is clear from the order-sheet itself. The order-sheet demonstrates that from time to time revisionist’s counsel appeared and argued the matter and pressed his application and throughout he was permitted to participate irrespective of the fact that there was no order in writing. 8. In view of the aforesaid situation, as there is no evidence from the side of the owner and it is the revisionist who got witness of the claimant cross-examined and has led his own evidence in the shape of oral and documentary evidence, it was obligatory on the part of the Tribunal to consider the case on merits and the evidence so given from the side of the revisionist irrespective of his application having been allowed/rejected. Once the revisionist has been permitted to participate in the proceedings and he participated in the proceedings for about 2 years, having led his own evidence, the observation of the Tribunal that application of the applicant is to be rejected at this stage, appears to be misconceived and that makes no sense. Once the revisionist has been permitted to participate in the proceedings and he participated in the proceedings for about 2 years, having led his own evidence, the observation of the Tribunal that application of the applicant is to be rejected at this stage, appears to be misconceived and that makes no sense. It appears that without considering the effect of his order and without taking care of the long participation by the revisionist, which is admittedly with the consent/permission of the Court itself he has passed the impugned order and thus on these facts impugned order needs modification 9. Accordingly this revision is to be disposed of by giving direction to the Tribunal that while deciding the claim petition on merits evidence led by the revisionist is to be taken into account and they are to be dealt in its final judgment irrespective of the merits. It can also be safely observed that as the revisionist is already appearing and has lead his evidence, his counsel will have a right to argue the matter also and thus it will be the concern of the Tribunal to decide the claim petition with all expedition at his command after giving opportunity of hearing to all concerned. 10. With the aforesaid modification in the order of the Tribunal, this revision stands disposed of. ————