JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District Nahan, camp at Paonta Sahib, in application No.138-N/2 of 2017, case titled Smt. Leela and others vs. Manoj Kumar and others, whereby the learned Tribunal below has dismissed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners-claimants maintained a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the learned Tribunal below, alleging therein that on 28.4.2017, deceased Dinesh and respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar, were coming from Chandni to Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in a car bearing No.HP-17B-8866 being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, could not control the said vehicle, due to which, the vehicle went off the road where Dinesh Kumar sustained multiple grievous head injuries and fractured on his body and died on the spot. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 and deceased Dinesh Kumar were very close friend and had a family relation with each other. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves and entire future of the petitioners have become dark. As per the petitioners, during investigation, it has been revealed that the aforesaid vehicle was driven by Shri Jagat Ram. Thereafter, petitioners after going through the investigation report moved an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment and amendment their claim petition and to implead Jagat Ram, as respondent No.1 in place of Manoj Kumar, as respondent No.1, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal below on 7.1.2019. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal below, petitioners maintained the present petition. 4. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal below, petitioners maintained the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that Shri Jagat Ram, was a necessary party, as it has come in reply to the petition that Shri Manoj Kumar, was not driving the vehicle and it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle. He has argued that when there is a specific issue framed whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, Shri Jagat Ram is required to be impleaded, as a party, as otherwise in the later stage, their petition may be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, after evidence, it may come on record that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 has argued that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle, so he may be pleaded as a party. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has vehemently argued that as per the report lodged with the police at the very first instance i.e. FIR, it has come in the report that only two peoples were in the vehicle i.e. S/Shri Manoj Kumar and Dinesh Kumar and when Ambulance 108 came there, Shri Dinesh Kumar was found dead and Shri Manoj Kumar was taken to the hospital. He has further argued that abruptly in the investigation, in last paragraph, Investigating Officer has written that it has come on record that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle looses his significance for the reason that at the very first instance the person, who lodged the FIR, could not found Shri Jagat Ram, on the spot. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal below has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference, as the petitioners want to improve their case in connivance with respondents No.1 to 3, so that the liability may be shifted to respondent No.4. 7. In rebuttal thereto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is a matter of evidence whether Shri Jagat Ram or Shri Manoj Kumar was driving the vehicle, but at this stage, the present petition is required to be allowed, as otherwise, on technical grounds after the evidence is over, their petition will be dismissed. 8. 7. In rebuttal thereto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is a matter of evidence whether Shri Jagat Ram or Shri Manoj Kumar was driving the vehicle, but at this stage, the present petition is required to be allowed, as otherwise, on technical grounds after the evidence is over, their petition will be dismissed. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. Though initially, the person, who reported the matter to the police found that one injured was taken to the hospital and one person was found dead on the spot, but there is nothing in FIR about the fact that who was driving the vehicle. It has come on record that Shri Jagat Ram was driving the vehicle. Now, as far as the petitioners are concerned, when it has come in their knowledge that Shri Jagat Ram was driving the vehicle, when there is a specific issue that the present petition is not maintainable because of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. It has incumbent upon the petitioners to implead Shri Jagat Ram, as respondent. 10. It is a matter of evidence and the impugned order dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal below on appreciation of evidence, at the belated stage to ascertain the fact, who was driving the vehicle and which of the respondent will become liable to pay compensation. At this stage, application is thus required to be allowed, to meet the ends of justice, as otherwise, when the proceedings are concluded, the petition may be dismissed just on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, which will lead to irreparable loss. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal below is modified. Hence, the application filed by the petitioners is required to be allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal below is modified and Shri Jagat Ram, is allowed to be made party respondent, as he is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. Consequently, application filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be allowed. Consequently, application filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be allowed. The learned Tribunal below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after adding Shri Jagat Ram, as one of the respondent and allowing the amendment. Ordered accordingly. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 18th September, 2019. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of. JUDGMENT : Chander Bhusan Barowalia, J. The present petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal-II, Sirmaur District Nahan, camp at Paonta Sahib, in application No.138-N/2 of 2017, case titled Smt. Leela and others vs. Manoj Kumar and others, whereby the learned Tribunal below has dismissed an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. The key facts, giving rise to the present petition are that the petitioners-claimants maintained a claim petition, under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, before the learned Tribunal below, alleging therein that on 28.4.2017, deceased Dinesh and respondent No.1-Manoj Kumar, were coming from Chandni to Sataun, Tehsil Paonta Sahib, District Sirmaur, in a car bearing No.HP-17B-8866 being driven by respondent No.1, in a rash and negligent manner, could not control the said vehicle, due to which, the vehicle went off the road where Dinesh Kumar sustained multiple grievous head injuries and fractured on his body and died on the spot. The accident has taken place due to the rash and negligent driving by the driver of the said vehicle. Respondent No.1 and deceased Dinesh Kumar were very close friend and had a family relation with each other. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves and entire future of the petitioners have become dark. As per the petitioners, during investigation, it has been revealed that the aforesaid vehicle was driven by Shri Jagat Ram. The deceased was the only bread earner in the family. The petitioners are not in a position to maintain themselves and entire future of the petitioners have become dark. As per the petitioners, during investigation, it has been revealed that the aforesaid vehicle was driven by Shri Jagat Ram. Thereafter, petitioners after going through the investigation report moved an application, under Order 1 Rule 10 read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for impleadment and amendment their claim petition and to implead Jagat Ram, as respondent No.1 in place of Manoj Kumar, as respondent No.1, but the said application was dismissed by the learned Tribunal below on 7.1.2019. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the impugned order, dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal below, petitioners maintained the present petition. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has argued that Shri Jagat Ram, was a necessary party, as it has come in reply to the petition that Shri Manoj Kumar, was not driving the vehicle and it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle. He has argued that when there is a specific issue framed whether the petition is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, Shri Jagat Ram is required to be impleaded, as a party, as otherwise in the later stage, their petition may be dismissed for non-joinder of necessary parties. Hence, after evidence, it may come on record that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle. 5. Learned counsel appearing for respondents No.1 to 3 has argued that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle, so he may be pleaded as a party. 6. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 has vehemently argued that as per the report lodged with the police at the very first instance i.e. FIR, it has come in the report that only two peoples were in the vehicle i.e. S/Shri Manoj Kumar and Dinesh Kumar and when Ambulance 108 came there, Shri Dinesh Kumar was found dead and Shri Manoj Kumar was taken to the hospital. He has further argued that abruptly in the investigation, in last paragraph, Investigating Officer has written that it has come on record that it was Shri Jagat Ram, who was driving the vehicle looses his significance for the reason that at the very first instance the person, who lodged the FIR, could not found Shri Jagat Ram, on the spot. He has further argued that the learned Tribunal below has rightly passed the impugned order, which needs no interference, as the petitioners want to improve their case in connivance with respondents No.1 to 3, so that the liability may be shifted to respondent No.4. 7. In rebuttal thereto, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that it is a matter of evidence whether Shri Jagat Ram or Shri Manoj Kumar was driving the vehicle, but at this stage, the present petition is required to be allowed, as otherwise, on technical grounds after the evidence is over, their petition will be dismissed. 8. To appreciate the arguments of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties, I have gone through the entire record in detail. 9. Though initially, the person, who reported the matter to the police found that one injured was taken to the hospital and one person was found dead on the spot, but there is nothing in FIR about the fact that who was driving the vehicle. It has come on record that Shri Jagat Ram was driving the vehicle. Now, as far as the petitioners are concerned, when it has come in their knowledge that Shri Jagat Ram was driving the vehicle, when there is a specific issue that the present petition is not maintainable because of non-joinder and misjoinder of necessary parties. It has incumbent upon the petitioners to implead Shri Jagat Ram, as respondent. 10. It is a matter of evidence and the impugned order dated 7.1.2019, passed by the learned Tribunal below on appreciation of evidence, at the belated stage to ascertain the fact, who was driving the vehicle and which of the respondent will become liable to pay compensation. At this stage, application is thus required to be allowed, to meet the ends of justice, as otherwise, when the proceedings are concluded, the petition may be dismissed just on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, which will lead to irreparable loss. At this stage, application is thus required to be allowed, to meet the ends of justice, as otherwise, when the proceedings are concluded, the petition may be dismissed just on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties, which will lead to irreparable loss. Accordingly, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal below is modified. Hence, the application filed by the petitioners is required to be allowed. The order of the learned Tribunal below is modified and Shri Jagat Ram, is allowed to be made party respondent, as he is a necessary party for proper adjudication of the case. Consequently, application filed by the learned counsel for the applicant, under Order 1 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, is ordered to be allowed. The learned Tribunal below is directed to proceed with the matter in accordance with law after adding Shri Jagat Ram, as one of the respondent and allowing the amendment. Ordered accordingly. Parties through their learned counsel are directed to appear before the learned Court below on 18th September, 2019. No order as to costs. Pending application(s), if any, also stand(s) disposed of.