Civil Revision No. 7425 of 2011 --1-- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 7425 of 2011 Date of decision. 02.12.2011 Gurmail Singh .... Petitioner Versus Vikram Singh @ Bikram Singh and ors. ...... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER SINGH MALIK 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Jagram Singh Cooner, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Vijender Singh Malik, J. Gurmail Singh, who had brought a claim petition under the provisions of section 166 of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') is the petitioner before me. He has brought this revision petition under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 15.11.2011 passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala(for short 'the Tribunal'). Learned Tribunal closed the evidence of the claimant vide the impugned order. The impugned order may be re-produced as under:- Civil Revision No. 7425 of 2011 --2-- “Present:- Shri Vivek Vaid, counsel for the claimant. Shri G.S. Bawa, counsel for respondents no.1 and 2. Shri Sanjay Dutt, counsel for respondent no.3. Evidence of claimant not present. Summons of Dr. K.D. Sharma not received back. It is observed that claimants has already availed more than eight opportunities for evidence of the claimant, but claimant has failed to conclude the same. Vide order dated 17.10.2011 case was adjourned for today for evidence of the claimant and it was ordered that it was the last opportunity. There is no ground to grant further adjournment and as such evidence of the claimant is closed by court order. Now to come up on 29.11.2011 for RWs.” I have heard Mr.Jagram Singh Cooner, learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record. Though learned Tribunal may be right in observing that the claimant had already availed more than eight opportunities to lead his evidence, yet the fact remains, as is evident from the order itself that summons of Dr. K.D. Sharma were not received back. Once summons of a witness, particularly a doctor, whose evidence is much necessary in a claim petition under section 166 of the Act, have been issued by learned Tribunal and they were not received back, the claimant cannot be held at fault for not bringing his evidence. Learned Tribunal had taken to itself to summon the witness. When it had failed to summon him, the evidence should not have been closed. Civil Revision No. 7425 of 2011 --3-- For the above mentioned reason, I agree with learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned order is bad. The revision petition is consequently allowed and the impugned order is set aside subject to payment of Rs.1000/- as costs. Learned Tribunal is directed to give one effective opportunity to the petitioner to produce his evidence and he may be given dasti summons of Dr. K.D. Sharma and, if desired, for any other witness for the date fixed. (VIJENDER SINGH MALIK) 02.12.2011 JUDGE dinesh