C. R. No. 2081 of 2009 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Case No. : C. R. No. 2081 of 2009 Date of Decision : April 20, 2009 Smt. Saroj Bala and others .... Petitioners Vs. Jasbir Singh and others .... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL * * * Present : Mr. J. S. Cooner, Advocate for the petitioners. * * * L. N. MITTAL, J. (Oral) : This is revision petition by claimants impugning order dated 01.04.2009 (Annexure P-1) passed by learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Ambala thereby dismissing claimants' application for additional evidence. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file. According to the claimants, both the deceased were coming from Lalru to Derabassi on a motorcycle. At about 11:45 P.M. on the night between 20/21.12.2006, the offending truck came from behind them and hit their motorcycle from behind. Stand of respondents no.1 and 2 (driver and owner of the offending truck) is that the truck, after loading from Chandigarh, proceeded C. R. No. 2081 of 2009 2 to Lalru to unload the goods at JCBL Factory. Ghaggar bridge being closed for repair, heavy traffic was diverted from Zirakpur to Banur and from Banur to Dappar. It was pleaded that the truck, therefore, did not pass from the place of alleged accident. The truck allegedly crossed Banur barrier at 07:43 P.M. on 20.12.2006. It was also pleaded that some unknown vehicle caused the accident and this truck was falsely implicated because the deceased were police officials and the witnesses are also police officials. The petitioners, by way of additional evidence, want to examine Revenue Patwari of Village Alamgir, Surjit Singh owner of dhaba, Ved Pal and Rajesh Sharma – both Security Guards from JCBL Group Company and concerned Clerk from Punjab State Electricity Board regarding electricity connection of dhaba of Surjit Singh. The respondents had pleaded in their written statement that the truck did not pass from the place of accident because heavy traffic was not allowed on account of Ghaggar bridge being closed for repair. The claimants, therefore, had knowledge of the version of the respondents. If the claimants wanted to lead any evidence, which they now wish to lead by way of additional evidence, they could do so in their affirmative evidence. No ground has been pleaded as to why this evidence could not be led by claimants at the appropriate stage. Now, the respondents have led evidence from Excise and Taxation Barrier as well as from the National Highway Authority of India in support of their version regarding diversion of traffic and passing of the truck at Banur barrier and the claimants have come up with the application of additional evidence thereafter. The learned Tribunal has observed that permitting the claimants to lead the proposed additional evidence would not only reopen the entire case, but would be setting up an altogether new case. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the truck reached the JCBL Company much late and therefore, the truck proceeded from Lalru towards Derabassi. However, there is no such C. R. No. 2081 of 2009 3 pleading in the claim petition and there is categorical version of respondents no.1 and 2 in their written statement that the truck went to Lalru from the diverted route and did not pass from the place of accident at all. In view of the aforesaid, I find no infirmity in the impugned order of learned Tribunal because the claimants, by way of additional evidence, want to reopen the entire case and want to set up an altogether new case much beyond the pleadings, which cannot be permitted. The revision petition is without any merit and is accordingly dismissed. April 20, 2009 ( L. N. MITTAL ) monika JUDGE