CR No.7516 of 2009 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CR No.7516 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision : 17.12.2009 Janak Raj and another ..Petitioners. Vs. Didar Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN Present : Mr.Vishal Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, J. This is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside order dated 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sangrur whereby the evidence of the petitioner has been closed. Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that young son of the petitioners, aged 23 years died in vehicular accident on 3.1.2008. In the claim petition, issues were framed on 8.9.2009 and the case was fixed for 16.9.2009 on which date, the following order was passed: “Today, the members of the bar have abstained from the Courts in protest against the revision of the Court fee etc. summons against the witnesses of the petitioners could not be issued for want of PF. Let PF be furnished within 5 days and summons be issued to PWs for 21.10.2009.” Thereafter, the case was adjourned to 21.10.2009 and the following order was passed: CR No.7516 of 2009 -2- “Two PWs are present and examined. During the examination of PW-1 Mangat Raj, counsel for respondent No.1 has moved an application under section 170 of Motor Vehicle Act and the same has been rejected vide order passed in the statement of the witness itself. For remaining evidence of the petitioners now to come up on 12.11.2009.” After that on 12.11.2009, the following order was passed : “Today, Shri Sanjiv Goel, Adv has filed power of attorney on behalf of respondent No.3. One PW is present and examined. For remaining evidence of the petitioners, now to come up on 1.12.2009. This shall be the last opportunity.” On 12.11.2009 the case was adjourned to 1.12.2009 and on that day, learned Tribunal passed the impugned order: “No evidence of the petitioner is present by now, the petitioner have availed four opportunities. This was the last opportunity. No case is made out for causing any adjournment and evidence of the petitioner is closed by order. For evidence of the respondent, now to come up on 17.12.2009, PF, DM, list of witnesses, if any, be filed within five days.” Counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that only 2/3 witnesses are left to be examined on behalf of the petitioners who have been diligently pursuing their case as two witnesses have been examined on 21.10.2009 and one witness was examined on 12.11.2009. After hearing the counsel for the petitioners, I am of the view that order passed by the Court below on 1.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) is erroneous and deserves to be set aside. The petitioners have been diligently CR No.7516 of 2009 -3- pursuing their case, therefore, they cannot be blamed for not examining witnesses for which the learned Court below has passed the order of closing the evidence. In view of the above, the petition is allowed and order dated 1.12.2009 is set aside. The petitioners are directed to examine all the witnesses on the next date of hearing, which shall be fixed by the learned Tribunal on 17.12.2009 as the case is fixed on that date. No costs. (Rakesh Kumar Jain) 17.12.2009 Judge Meenu