Civil Revision No.276 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.276 of 2009 Date of Decision:20.01.2009 Sheela Devi & ors. ....petitioners Versus Chaman Lal & anr. .....respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr.Rajeev Dev Sharma,Advocate for the petitioners **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG J. This is a revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.11.2008, whereby the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurdaspur has closed the evidence of the petitioners by order. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the oral evidence on behalf of the petitioners has already been completed and they are to tender only some documents in the remaining evidence and they will conclude their evidence in one opportunity only. It has been further stated that petitioner No.1 is a poor widow and other petitioners are minor children of Dilawar Singh, who has died in accident and due to her bad financial status she was unable to collect the certified copies of various documents earlier and for these reasons she was unable to complete her evidence. Thus, the evidence could not be concluded by her due to bona fide reasons. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to one more opportunity to lead her evidence. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. Without going into the merits of the case, interest of justice shall be served if the Civil Revision No.276 of 2009 2 petitioners are granted one more opportunity to lead their documentary evidence as the respondents can be well compensated by way of costs. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners the next date of hearing is 21.01.2009 for respondents' evidence. This petition is allowed subject to payment of costs of Rs.2000/-. The petitioners shall appear before the Tribunal on the date fixed i.e.21.01.2009 on which date the trial Court shall grant one opportunity to the petitioners to lead their evidence. It is made clear that payment of costs to the respondents shall be the condition precedent for allowing such an opportunity. The petitioners shall bring all evidence on their own responsibility and no further opportunity shall be granted to them for any reason. Thus the impugned order is set aside and the petition is allowed as stated above. Petition disposed of. (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) JUDGE 20.01.2009 neenu