// 1 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.278/2003 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Mohan Pareek ...Petitioner Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana District Sikar (Raj.) and Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 17.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.M. Ranjan with Shri Surendra Budhania, Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 #### By the Court:- Heard learned counsel for both the parties. The petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2002 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-Ka-Thana, District Sikar, whereby the learned Tribunal rejected his application for summoning Ramswaroop, A.S.I., to be examined as his witness. The claimants-respondents No.2 to 4 filed an application for compensation before the Tribunal wherein the petitioner was impleaded as non-claimant. The said claim petition was fixed before the Tribunal on 19th December, 2002. The statement of NAW-2 Moolchand was recorded. The counsel for the petitioner moved an application for summoning Ramswaroop, A.S.I. for recording his statement on behalf of the non-claimant-petitioner. The Tribunal rejected the said application vide impugned order, which has been challenged in this writ petition. A notice to show-cause was given to the respondents on 16th January, 2003. The respondents No.2 to 4 appeared before this Court in March, 2004 and since then no reply to the writ petition has been filed by them. // 2 // The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the examination of Ramswaroop, A.S.I., in the present case was necessary looking to the facts and circumstances of the present case and Ramswaroop being a Government servant was not under his control, therefore, he could not have been produced by the petitioner, therefore, it was necessary for the Tribunal to issue summon against him to appear for his examination in support of the case of the non-claimant. He further contended that the learned Tribunal committed an illegality in dismissing the application of the petitioner whereas it should have been allowed in the facts and circumstances of the present case. The learned counsel for the claimants-respondents has defended the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The claim petition before the Tribunal was fixed on 19th December, 2002 and on that date the statement of NAW-2 Moolchand was recorded on behalf of the non-claimant-petitioner. The counsel for the non- claimant-petitioner moved an application for summoning Ramswaroop, A.S.I., in the case to be examined on his behalf. The trial court dismissed the application of the petitioner on the ground that the case was fixed for non- claimant's evidence on 12.05.2002, 01.06.2002, 12.07.2002, 27.07.2002, 30.08.2002 and 28.11.2002 and last opportunity was given on 12.12.2002. From the impugned order it appears that the case was fixed on 19.12.2002 and on that date also the statement of NAW-2 Moolchand was recorded and in case non- claimant wanted to examine more witnesses in support of his case then it was not proper and justified on the part of the Tribunal to close the evidence of the non-claimant. The trial court committed an illegality in passing the order closing the evidence of the non-claimant and the said impugned order is liable to be set-aside. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal closing the evidence of the petitioner is set-aside. The petitioner is // 3 // permitted to examine Ramswaroop, A.S.I., in support of his case. The Tribunal is directed to issue necessary summon against Ramswaroop, A.S.I., to appear and depose his statement on behalf of the petitioner. Both the parties are directed to appear before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-Ka-Thana, on 29th April, 2008. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman// // 4 // IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR ORDER IN S.B. Civil Misc. Stay Application No.201/2003 In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.278/2003 Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Rajendra Mohan Pareek ...Petitioner Versus Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Neem-ka-Thana District Sikar (Raj.) and Others ...Respondents Date of Order ::: 17.03.2008 Present Hon'ble Mr. Justice Narendra Kumar Jain Shri Ajay Gupta, Counsel for petitioner Shri M.M. Ranjan with Shri Surendra Budhania, Counsel for respondents No.2 to 4 #### By the Court:- In view of the order passed in the writ petition itself, the stay application, filed therewith, also stands disposed of. (Narendra Kumar Jain) J. //Jaiman//