IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD MONDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.3185 of 2009 Between: Madanam Yellaiah and others … Petitioners And The A.P.S.R.T.C, Nizamabad & others … Respondents THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH C.R.P. No.3185 of 2009 ORDER: This revision petition has been filed aggrieved by order dated 14.05.2009 passed in I.A. No.1105 of 2009 in O.P. No.212 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Nizamabad. The case of the revision petitioners is that they filed I.A. No.1105 of 2009 seeking to re-open the case for adducing further evidence on the ground that by oversight the counsel appearing on their behalf represented before the Court below that no further evidence is to be adduced. The Court below on 14.05.2009 dismissed the said petition holding that it is filed after closing the evidence as reported by the counsel. The learned counsel for the revision petitioners submitted that in the accident that occurred on 25.09.2005, parents of the revision petitioners died. In order to claim compensation, revision petitioners have filed two separate claim petitions i.e., O.P. No.212 of 2007, claiming compensation of Rs.8.00,000/- for the death of their mother, and O.P. No.213 of 2007 claiming compensation of Rs.10,00,000/- for the death of their father. In order to establish the case of the revision petitioners, three witnesses were examined. P.W.3 was examined on 29.04.2009 and on that day without there being any proper instructions from the revision petitioners, the counsel appearing on their behalf before the Court below has reported by oversight that no further evidence is to be adduced but whereas, some more witnesses i.e., Dudi Ganesh, Ranga Rao, Srinivas Rao and Chechu Yadagiri, who were present at the place of accident occurred, need to be examined. He further submitted that the Court below without proper appreciation of the said petition has erroneously, without assigning proper reasons, dismissed the said petition. Therefore, he requested this Court to allow the revision petition by setting aside the impugned order. No counter affidavit has been filed. From a perusal of the record, parents of the revision petitioners died in an accident that occurred on 25.09.2005 and in order to claim compensation, they filed two separate claim petitions and wherein three witnesses were examined. On 29.04.2009, P.W.3 was examined and on that day, the counsel appearing on their behalf before the Court below, without proper instructions from the revision petitioner, by oversight, had reported that no further evidence is to be adduced. Taking into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel, the Court below had closed the evidence on behalf of the revision petitioner. But later on, the revision petitioners have moved a petition under Section 151 CPC seeking to re-open the case to adduce further evidence on their behalf and the Court below dismissed the same holding that it is filed after closing the evidence as reported by the counsel. Though the Court below had rightly closed the evidence based on the representation made by the learned counsel, when a petition was moved stating that the counsel appearing on their behalf, without obtaining proper instructions from his clients, represented, by oversight, that he has no further evidence and the said petition was moved on the ground that there are some more witnesses to be examined, who witnessed the accident and are very crucial to prove their case effectively, the Court below ought to have given an opportunity of adducing further evidence, in the interest of justice. The Court below, while dismissing the petition, has assigned no proper reasons, except holding that the petition is filed after closing the evidence as reported by the counsel. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the learned counsel, as the O.P. pertains to the year of 2007, this Court is of the view that an opportunity can be given to the revision petitioners to adduce further evidence, in the interest of justice. Accordingly, the order dated 14.05.2009 passed in I.A. No.1105 of 2009 in O.P. No.212 of 2007 by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (District Judge) Nizamabad, is set aside and the Court below is directed to permit the revision petitioners to adduce further evidence. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH Date: 19.04.2010. LSK