CR No.733 of 2010 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR No.733 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: February 3, 2010. Manjeet Singh ...Petitioner v. Sunil Kumar & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Shri B.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J. (Oral): As per the averments made in this petition, petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicular accident. He filed claim petition against the respondents claiming compensation of Rs.20 lacs alleging that he was drawing a salary of Rs.38,000/- per month and due to the accident, he could not attend his duty for about 4-5 months. It is the further case of the petitioner that he deposited the necessary requisites for summoning the witness from M/s Goodyear India Ltd., i.e., his employer to produce his record of absence and salary. The summons were issued and the record keeper of the aforesaid company was present in the court with record, however, on that day his evidence could not be recorded and thereafter, no one came present to the court with record of the case. It is the further case of the petitioner that his evidence was closed by order of the court on 27.11.2009 in spite of his prayer to call the witness CR No.733 of 2010 -: 2 :- from M/s Goodyear India Ltd. However, without considering the aforesaid, his evidence was closed vide order dated 27.11.2009. It is further submitted in this petition that petitioner moved an application for additional evidence for producing the record of his absence from duty and to prove his salary. The aforesaid application for leading additional evidence was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 20.1.2010 illegally. Challenging the orders dated 27.11.2009 and 20.1.2010 passed by the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that in case the petitioner is not allowed to prove his case by calling the evidence as prayed, he shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and therefore, he is entitled to be granted one more opportunity for proving his case and the impugned orders are liable to set aside. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have perused the impugned orders. A perusal of the order dated 27.11.2009 would show that the petitioner was granted seven effective opportunities to lead his evidence and on the last three occasions, the petitioner was warned in the form of last opportunity and on 27.11.2009, no evidence on the part of the petitioner was present. It is also mentioned in the aforesaid order that there was no convincing ground for further adjournment and in these circumstances, the impugned order was passed closing the evidence of the petitioner by order of the court. The said observations of the Tribunal in the aforesaid order have not been challenged by the petitioner in this petition. The petitioner also failed to mention as to when the record keeper from his employer was present in the court and thereafter why he was not present and whether any attempt was made to summon him or not. In these circumstances, no fault CR No.733 of 2010 -: 3 :- can be found in the aforesaid order dated 27.11.2009. The petitioner did not challenge the said order dated 27.11.2009 till the filing of this petition. It may also be noticed that after the order dated 27.11.2009, the respondents have led their entire evidence and the evidence of respondent No.3 has been closed by order of the court and thereafter, the petitioner moved an application for allowing him to adduce additional evidence. The Tribunal after perusing the record and noticing all the aforesaid facts, found that there was no justification for allowing the petitioner to lead additional evidence and rejected his prayer vide order dated 20.1.2010. In this application, petitioner again wanted to adduce the same evidence which he could not produce earlier and was to his knowledge. Now, when the case is at the fag end, the petitioner has challenged both the orders. The petitioner has failed to show any reason as to why he had not approached this court earlier when his evidence was closed by order dated 27.11.2009. Keeping in view the totality of the circumstances, I find no merit in this petition. Dismissed. February 3, 2010. [ Rakesh Kumar Garg ] kadyan Judge