CW 9595/06 //1// In the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan Jaipur Bench ** Civil Writ Petition No.9595/2006 Mahesh Versus Chhagan Lal & Ors. Date of Order ::: 03/07/09 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Rastogi Mr. Mukesh Kr. Goyal, for petitioner (claimant), Mr. AN Pareek, for respondents Instant petition has been filed assailing order dt.24/05/06 whereby Motor Accident Claims Tribunal Karauli (“Tribunal”) rejected claimant's application moved for taking necessary documents on record pending adjudication of claim petition. Petitioner filed claim petition (No.58/04) before the Tribunal U/Ss 166/140 of Motor Vehicles Act claiming compensation for the injuries sustained on his person due to accident having taken place on 01/05/2003. Pending adjudication of his claim petition, petitioner-claimant moved an application for taking necessary documents (medical bills & receipts of travelling expenses). Respondents raised objection in taking these documents on record while making oral submissions. The Tribunal while examining nature of documents which petitioner sought to produce on record, recorded the finding that some documents are not admissible in evidence; and accordingly dismissed his application vide order impugned. Counsel for petitioner submits that CW 9595/06 //2// documents produced in support of his claim and evidence, the Tribunal committed an error in not taking into consideration and if at all it was not admissible in evidence, that could have been considered at the time of adjudication of his claim petition, which is still pending consideration and thus it has caused serious prejudice to the claimant. Counsel for respondents submits that looking to the nature of bills which petitioner sought to produce, on its perusal shows that these all are forged documents and are not admissible in evidence and could not have been allowed to be produced in order to show travelling expenses; in such circumstances, the Tribunal has not committed any error in rejecting the application vide order impugned. I have considered contentions of both the Counsel and perused the material on record. The evidence of petitioner was yet to be recorded at the stage of rejection of application vide order impugned. Admissibility of documentary evidence produced alongwith application could only be considered by the Tribunal at the time of recording of the evidence of party in course of adjudication of the claim petition. Recording the finding in regard to admissibility of documentary evidence pending adjudication of the claim, CW 9595/06 //3// certainly caused prejudice; in such circumstances, order impugned is not legally sustainable. Consequently, writ petition stands allowed. Order dt.24/05/06 is hereby quashed & set aside. Application of petitioner stands allowed and documents referred to therein can be considered at the time of final adjudication of the claim petition. Respondents will also have an opportunity to rebut such documentary evidence. Both the parties are directed to appear on 31/07/09 before the Tribunal, which may proceed further in accordance with law. A copy of order be sent to the MACT, Karauli. (Ajay Rastogi), J. K.Khatri/p3/9595CW06-Jul03-MACT-Ds.doc