'X s^ %, %^^jy/ ^ssy ^\^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (2271 N0.413 OF 2009 PETITIONER/ NON^PPLICANT N0.1 RESPONDENTS/ APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT N02 Brija Devi. W/o Ram Jatan, aged about 45 years, R/o village Dibulgang, Post Anpara, Distt. Sonbhadra (UP) Owner through its power of attorney Ram Sunder Dubey, S/o Late Rameshar Dubey, aged about 72 years, R/o village Khairahi, PS Dudhi, Distt. Sonbhadra (UP). Versus 1. Nagendra Patel. S/o Jageshar Mahto, aged aboutSO years. 2. Budhanj, W/o Nagendra Patel. aged about 43 years. Both R/o village Parasdiha. Jamaipara, P.S. Chalgali, Tahsil Wadrafnagar, Distt. Sarguja (CG). 3. Amrjt Lal Jaiswal, S/o Jamuna Prasad Jaiswal, R/o village Pandri, Tahsil Wadrafnagar. Distt. Sarguja (CG) at present Wo village Chouna Bahra, Sonbhadra (UP). (Writ petition underArticle 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Singte Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri. J. Present: Shri D.N. Prajapati. counsel for the petitioner. ORDER (Passed on this 28'" day ofJanuary, 2009) With the consent of learned counset appearing for the parties. the petitjon is heard finally. 2) By this petition. the pet'rtioner chaljenges the legality and validity of the order dated 28-11-2008 (Annexure-P/1) passed by the Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Fast Track Court, Pratappur. in MACT No.25/07. whereby the application fited by the petitioner for appointment of Commissioner under Order XXVI Rute 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (forshort "the CPC") has been rejected. 3) Leamed counsel appearing for the petitjoner submits that the respondents No.1 & 2 have preferred a claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehides Act. 1988 against the petitioner and the respondent No.3, which is pending and fixed for evidence. In the said case, the petitioner moved an application under Order XXVI Rule 4 of the CPC for / ^^^£t^S&!^ ^ i^ <^ /s ^^^;--... '^ vss.3 ^^^^;- ^ '2-- Gowri recording her statement on commission on the ground of her ill-health; the same has been opposed by the respondents No.1 & 2 jn the reply. Learned counset further submits that the Court below withoutappreciating the facts and circumstances ofthe case in its tetter and spirit as well as provisjons of law regarding issue of commission rejected the apptication ofthe petitioner by order dated 28-11-2008 (Annexure-P/1). Learned counsel next submits that the Court below has ignored the grounds urged by the petitioner on account of her ill-health. The petitioner is ready to deposit the requisite expenses for appointment ofCommJssioner. 4) I have heard leamed counsel appearing for the petjtioner, perused the pleadjngsand the documents appended thereto. White passing the impugned order dated 28-11-2008. the Court below observed thatthat the petitioner has not filed any documents with regard to her ill-health, she js not interested to appear before the Court on her personal reasons and the petitioner is the star witness of the case. The medical documents dated 23-9-2008. 11-12-2008. 12-8-2008 issued by the Doctors do not seem to be authentic. Even otherwise, the medical certificates provides bed rest for 10-15 days only. There is no serious ailment asto necessitate appointment of the Commissjoner for recording evidence of the petitioner. Thus, the order dated 28-11-2008 (Annexure-P/1) is unexceptionable. just & proper and does not warrant any interference. 5) This court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India should refrain itself from jnterfering with the order passed by the court below, except in such cases where perversity, illegality. irregularity or jurisdjctional error js writ large on the face of the record. which is not in the present case. 6) In view of the foregoing reasons, this writ petition is dismissed at the motion stage jtself. 7) Consequently. I.A.No.1 stands disposed of. _^ Sd/- , _ -isb^Tl>otri