J.P. Desai, J.
1. The learned advocate for the appellants was heard at length in this appeal. The learned Advocate Mr. R.H. Mehta now states that he withdraws this appeal. In view of this, this appeal is disposed of as withdrawn. Looking to the facts of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs of this appeal.
2. Before parting with this case, I would like to observe here that initially the application for compensation was filed by the applicant against the owner of the scooter and his minor son who was driving the scooter at the time of this incident. The minor had naturally no licence to drive the scooter. Thereafter, purshis Ex. 34 was given by opponents Nos. 1 and 2 to the effect that not the minor opponent but one another fellow was driving the scooter at the time of this incident and, therefore, he was a necessary party to the application for compensation. Thereafter, application Ex. 36 was filed by the claimant-petitioner for joining the said person as opponent No. 3. On this application, the learned advocate for opponents Nos. 1 and 2 made an endorsement 'no objection'. No endorsement of the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company was obtained below this application. The learned M.A.C. Tribunal (Special) at Narol passed the following order below this application:
Amendment is allowed as other side has no objection. Amendment to be carried out on or before next date.
3. The order passed by the learned Tribunal does not show that the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company was heard before passing the order as above. The application, as stated by me a little earlier, does not show any endorsement of 'no objection' by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company. There being no endorsement by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, who was naturally vitally interested in opposing this application, it is not understood how the learned Tribunal observed that the amendment is allowed as other side has no objection. When there was no endorsement by the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company, the learned Tribunal should have asked the learned Advocate for the applicant to supply a copy of the application to the learned Advocate for the Insurance Company and obtain an endorsement and only thereafter he should have passed a speaking order below the application. The Insurance Company would have ordinarily objected to such an application and, therefore, it would have been necessary to pass a speaking order. This application Ex. 36 was not a routine type of application. The application for amendment in the present case was dealt with by the learned M.A.C. Tribunal in a very cursory and slip-shod manner. He passed an order below this application as if it was a routine application such as an application for adjournment. A speaking order ought to have been passed below this application particularly looking to the circumstances stated above.
4. A copy of this order should be sent to the principal Judge, City Civil Court, all the Judges of the City Civil Court and all the District Judges including the Joint Judges and Assistant Judges.