IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No. 6431 of 2008 Date of Decision: 14.7.2009 United India Insurance Company Limited ....Petitioner. Versus Shenaz and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. R.K. Bashamboo, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Salim Malik, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Pervez Akhtar, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the Insurance Company, the grievance is against the order dated 24.10.2008 whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Sangrur (for short “the Tribunal”) has closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner wants to examine only one witness, namely, Surinder Kumar Bhandari, concerned Clerk from the office of DTO, Ludhiana. He pointed out that the summons were issued to the aforesaid witness which were received back with the report of “refusal”, whereupon the Tribunal ordered that the witness be summoned through bailable warrants in the sum of Rs.5000/- for 24.10.2008. It has been stated that CR No. 6431 of 2008 -2- thereafter the evidence of the petitioner was closed by order without noticing the factum of execution or non-execution of the bailable warrants. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that once bailable warrants were issued for procuring the presence of the aforesaid witness, it was the duty of the Tribunal to secure his presence either through bailable warrants or non-bailable warrants and since, there was no fault on the part of the petitioner, the impugned order closing his evidence is not sustainable. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, have supported the order passed by the Tribunal. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, I find that the impugned order dated 24.10.2008 is unsustainable. A perusal of the file shows that on 25.9.2008, the summoned witness, namely, Surinder Kumar Bhandari, was duly served and he had refused to accept the summons, whereupon, bailable warrants were issued to secure his presence for 24.10.2008. Once that was so, no fault could be found on the part of the petitioner for non- production of the aforesaid witness on 24.10.2008. Accordingly, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 24.10.2008 is set aside. Let Surinder Kumar Bhandari, Clerk in the office of the DTO, Ludhiana be summoned as a witness of the petitioner by the trial court in accordance with law. July 14, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE