IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 143 OF 2008 SMT. MEGHA UTTAM GAUNS ALIAS KUNDAIKAR AND 2 ORS., ... Petitioners Versus SHRI. ROHIDAS K. BORGES AND ANR., ... Respondents Mr. Rahul Satardekar, Advocate for the Petitioners. Coram:- N. A. BRITTO, J. Date:- 28th March, 2008 P.C.:- Heard Mr. Rahul Satardekar, learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners. The Petitioners are Claimants in Claim Petition No. 76/05 filed by them for compensation. The accident is stated to have taken place on 27-3-2005 and the Claimants began with their evidence on 26-9-2006 and closed their case on 23-10-2007, after examining six witnesses in support of their case. The Claim Petition was thereafter fixed for Respondents' evidence on 7-12-2007, when the Petitioners filed the application for re-opening their evidence which came to be rejected by the Order impugned in the Writ Petition. Admittedly, one of the witnesses sought to be examined is one Mayur who was none other than Claimant No.2 in the Claim Petition and there is no explanation given as to why he was not examined prior to 23-10-2007. As far as the other witness by name Merwin D'Mello is concerned, it is not known as to when the Claimants discovered that he was an eye witness to the accident. The learned MACT has observed that the Investigation Officer did not name the said Merwin D'Mello as an eye witness or any other type of witness in the case, and, there is no challenge to the said observation. Learned Counsel on behalf of the Petitioners states that the affidavit of the said Merwin D'Mello is ready and can be filed in the Claim Petition. Admittedly, the Claimants did not file any list of witnesses and gave no plausible explanation as to how they suddenly discovered that the said Merwin D'Mello was an eye witness to the accident after a lapse of more than two years or so. Re-opening of the case is bound to delay the trial of the Claim Petition. Refusal by the learned MACT to allow the Petitioners to examine the said two witnesses could not be faulted, in the circumstances of the case. There is no merit in this petition and therefore the same is hereby dismissed. N. A. BRITTO, J. RD.