IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2546 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: April 20, 2011. Raj Kumar @Raju. ...... PETITIONER(s) Versus Prem Singh and others. ...... RESPONDENT (s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM CHAND GUPTA Present: Mr. Harmandeep S.Sullar, Advocate for the petitioner. ***** RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.(Oral) CM No.10258-CII of 2011 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. CR No.2546 of 2011 The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 16.03.2011, Annexure P4 passed by learned Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the ‘MACT’) vide which it was held that petitioner-claimant cannot be granted any other opportunity to produce evidence as his evidence was already closed vide order dated 25.09.2007. CR No.2546 of 2011 I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned MACT, Ambala. Brief facts relevant for the decision of the present revision petition are that, a petition under Section 163-A of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 for compensation on account of injuries received by the claimant was filed by the petitioner-claimant. Petition was contested by the respondents. Issues were framed. Case was fixed for evidence of petitioner which was closed by the court vide order dated 25.09.2007. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing Civil Revision No.909 of 2009. However, during the pendency of said revision petition, petition filed by the petitioner before learned MACT was dismissed for non-prosecution and hence, the said revision petition was also dismissed as having become infructuous. Later on, the main petition was restored and however, no opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce evidence. Hence, in view of these facts, though sufficient opportunities were granted to petitioner by learned MACT to adduce the evidence before closing the same vide order dated 25.09.2007 and however, in view of subsequent development one opportunity can be granted to petitioner- claimant to adduce evidence and other party can be compensated by way of cost. Hence, the present revision petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. Learned MACT, Ambala is directed to grant one opportunity to petitioner to adduce evidence at his own responsibility subject to payment of `1,000/- as cost, which shall be a condition precedent. Disposed of accordingly. 2 CR No.2546 of 2011 ( RAM CHAND GUPTA ) April 20, 2011. JUDGE 'om' 3