Civil Revision No. 2601 of 2009 (1) In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2601 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision : 7.5.2009 Karambir ..... Petitioner vs Ashok Kumar and others ..... Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal Present: Mr. J. S. Saneta, Advocate, for the petitioner. Rajesh Bindal J. Prayer in the present petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is for setting aside order dated 30.4.2009 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kurukshetra (for short, “the Tribunal”), whereby evidence of the petitioner was closed by order of the Tribunal. For the view I am taking in the present petition, I do not deem it appropriate to issue notice to the respondents, as the same would unnecessarily delay not only the disposal of the present petition but the claim as well. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was injured in an accident and had suffered multiple injuries. Issues were framed on 20.3.2008 and the case was fixed for petitioner's evidence. He submitted that the doctors who had treated him after the accident are the witnesses but he could not produce them as they were not served. The petitioner is claiming compensation on account of injuries suffered by him in the accident. He further submitted that in case one opportunity is granted, the petitioner will complete his entire evidence on the date to be fixed by the learned Tribunal. It is evident from the impugned order that the court had granted many adjournments to the petitioner for producing evidence but he failed to complete the same. The reason given by him that the summons could not be served on the doctors at the hospital address where he was treated after the accident and due to that reason he could not lead evidence, is found to be reasonable to grant one opportunity to the petitioner to complete his evidence. Civil Revision No. 2601 of 2009 (2) Considering the fact that the petitioner is seeking compensation on account of accident, as a matter of indulgence, while setting aside the impugned order dated 30.4.2009, closing the evidence of the petitioner, the learned Tribunal is directed to grant one opportunity to him for completing his evidence on the date to be fixed. The petitioner is also at liberty to summon the witnesses through the process of the court. The revision petition is disposed of in the manner indicated above. 7.5.2009 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge