C.R. No.7815 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No.7815 of 2010 Date of Decision: 01.12.2010 Harmeet Kaur .....Petitioner Versus Preetam Kaur ……Respondent Coram:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL. Present: Mr. Parveen Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner. L. N. MITTAL, J (ORAL) Harmeet Kaur, who is respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal, has filed the instant revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 17.11.2010 Annexure P-1 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Moga thereby closing evidence of respondent No.2 by Court order. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that two witnesses i.e. one stamp vendor and one Notary Public have to be examined in addition to respondent No.2-petitioner, but the Notary public being aged about 85 years is unable to come to the Court and, therefore, application has to be moved for his examination on commission. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that petitioner herself is also unable to appear being old and she has to examine her attorney as witness. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays that in addition to examination of Notary Public on commission, only one more C.R. No.7815 of 2010 -2- opportunity may be granted to the petitioner for her other evidence at own responsibility on payment of costs. I have carefully considered the aforesaid prayer. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that four effective opportunities were granted to respondent No.2-petitioner for her evidence. She did not summon any witness for 07.09.2010, the first date for her evidence. Next date of hearing was 22.09.2010, but she deposited diet money of three witnesses on 20.09.2010 only and, therefore, no time was left for summoning the said witnesses. Even on 22.09.2010, counsel for respondent No.2 did not point out that witnesses had been summoned through Court. The case was adjourned to 25.10.2010, subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. On 25.10.2010, no witness was present and case was adjourned to 17.11.2010. Dasti summons of the witnesses were also permitted. However, again on 17.11.2010, no witness of respondent No.2-petitioner was present. Counsel for respondent No.2 before the Claims Tribunal submitted that Ahlmed did not issue dasti summons of the witnesses in spite of requests. This plea was rightly discarded by the Claims Tribunal because if Ahlmed has not issued dasti summons in spite of order, counsel for respondent No.2 could bring it to the notice of the Presiding Officer, immediately direct the Ahlmed to issue dasti summons. However, this procedure was not adopted and in fact dasti summons was not collected by respondent No.2 or her counsel and it was only an excuse that the dasti summons was not issued by the Ahlmed. In addition to it even respondent No.2 herself or her attorney did not step into the witness box in spite of four effective opportunities and there is no explanation whatsoever for the same. C.R. No.7815 of 2010 -3- Having said as aforesaid, I am of the considered opinion that ends of justice would be met if prayer of counsel for petitioner is allowed on payment of heavy costs. Petitioner has to be burdened with heavy costs in view of her conduct noticed in the preceding paragraph. I intend to dispose of the instant revision petition without issuing notice to claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 so as to avoid further delay in the disposal of the case and also to save the claimants/respondent Nos.1 to 3 from the expenses which they may have to incur in engaging counsel for the revision petition if notice of revision petition is issued to them. In view of the above, the instant revision petition is allowed and the Claims Tribunal is directed to grant only one more opportunity for evidence of respondent No.2-petitioner at own responsibility, subject to payment of Rs.5000/- as costs precedent. Respondent No.2-petitioner may take assistance of the Court to summon evidence, but not more than one opportunity shall be granted to the respondent No.2-petitioner for her evidence even on the ground of non-service of any witness or non-appearance of any witness despite service or on any other ground whatsoever. However, if a case is made out for examination of the Notary Public on commission, the Claims Tribunal on application being moved for the purpose may permit the same in accordance with law. 01.12.2010. ( L. N. MITTAL ) A. Kaundal JUDGE