IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.689 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.02.2009 TATA AIG General Insurance Company Ltd., SCO No. 232- 234 (Second Floor), Sector 34, Chandigarh. ... Petitioner Versus 1. Mohan Lal son of Late Sh. Ram Kishan, aged about 69 years, resident of House No. 3404, Sector 32-D, Chandigarh. 2. Satnam Singh @ Lucky son of Sh. Beant Singh Saini, resident of House No. 311, Phase-VI, Mohali (Pb.) 3. Amrik Singh Longia, resident of House No. 1535-A, Sector 2- B, Chandigarh. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. N.K. Malhotra, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * * RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (ORAL) This revision petition has been filed by the Insurance Company, challenging the order, dated 17.12.2008, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Chandigarh, has rejected the application filed by the petitioner to recall Mohan Lal, claimant/respondent for further cross- examination. The Counsel for the petitioner has argued that respondent No. 1 -2- had admitted before the authorities of the Insurance Company that he had hired the offending vehicle and this statement dated 04.01.2006, could not be put to him when he entered the witness box. According to the learned Counsel for the petitioner, there was lapse on the part of the petitioner company, but this question goes to the root of the controversy and it is in the interest of justice that the aforesaid witness be recalled for further cross- examination. I have heard the Counsel for the petitioner. Admittedly, the evidence of the claimant/respondent had already been completed and even the evidence of the petitioner company had been completed and the case is fixed for arguments. The application filed by the petitioner, at this belated stage is nothing but an afterthought and to fill in the lacunae left in their case and the same cannot be allowed to the prejudice of the other parties. No merits. Dismissed. 06.02.2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) Amodh JUDGE