Civil Revision No. 1699 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 1699 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 26.3.2009 Biasa Devi and another ..... Petitioners vs Gurcharan Singh and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. P. S. Paul, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 6.2.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ropar, whereby evidence of the petitioners/claimants was closed by order of the court. 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 also the claim petition as well. The proceedings in the present case arise out of a motor accident claim petition filed by the petitioners against the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners are aged parents of deceased Rajesh Kumar who died on 6.10.2001 in an accident. He submitted that the petitioners had earlier examined four witnesses. The official witness, who was produced on 6.2.2009 by the petitioners, had not produced the whole record on the said date of hearing as mentioned in the application for summoning the record. The petitioners only wanted to produce the record with regard to appointment of the deceased and the income he was getting and how much income the persons working at present were getting. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioners will complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The facts submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner are borne out from the record. It is not a case where the petitioners had not led Civil Revision No. 1699 of 2009 (2) any evidence earlier rather the official witness summoned, had not come with complete record on the date fixed. It is on account of this fact that the petitioner will not be able to prove the income of the deceased to get fair amount of compensation assessed. The case is stated to be fixed for 30.3.2009. Accordingly, while setting aside the impugned order dated 6.2.2009, the learned court below is directed to grant one opportunity to the petitioners for completing their evidence on the date to be fixed by the court. It is, however, made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted to the petitioners in case they fail to complete their entire evidence on the date fixed. The petitioners may get summons issued for any official witness. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 26.3.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge