Civil Revision No. 2681 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2681 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 12.5.2009 Sachin ..... Petitioner vs Kanhiya Lal and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. S. Hooda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 17.4.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Faridabad (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Tribunal. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the claim as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was injured in an accident and had suffered multiple injuries. After completion of pleadings, issues were framed on 28.4.2008 and the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence. Thereafter, the petitioner examined two witnesses. In the meantime, as the parties were in the process of amicable settlement, the matter was put up before the Lok Adalat. As the matter could not be compromised, the case was fixed for 27.2.2009 for petitioner's evidence and further the case was adjourned to 17.4.2009 for same purpose. On 17.4.2009, the petitioner was unable to attend the court due to personal reason which resulted into the passing of impugned order. The petitioner is claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. Learned counsel further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date already fixed by the learned Tribunal i.e. 15.5.2009. Civil Revision No. 2681 of 2009 (2) It is evident from the impugned order that during the trial the case was put up before the Lok Adalat for amicable settlement but as the same could not be settled, it was adjourned for evidence. The reason given by the petitioner that on the day when the impugned order was passed, he could not appear before the Tribunal as he had to go to attend some family function, is found to be reasonable to grant one opportunity to him to complete his evidence. Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking compensation on account of accident, as a matter of indulgence, while setting aside the impugned order dated 17.4.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal is directed to grant one opportunity to him for completing his evidence on the date already fixed i.e. 15.5.2009. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. Copy of the order be give dasti on payment of usual charges. 12.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge