Revision petition dismissed where Motor Accident Claims Tribunal allowed petitioner opportunity to lead evidence. Core matter: short procedural order.
Petitioners allowed to lead entire evidence on September 26, 2009.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CR No.5265 of 2009 Decided on : 14.09.2009
Subodh Kumar & others
... Petitioners
versus
Shanti Devi & others
...Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present : Mr. Promila Nain, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 26.08.2009 whereby the evidence of the petitioners has been closed by the Ld. Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula.
Learned counsel for the petitioners states the petitioners are driver/owner and want to place on record the only copy of evidence i.e. License, Insurance Policy, their affidavit and Permit card etc. Learned counsel further states that the case is fixed for rebuttal evidence on 26.09.2009 of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for one more opportunity to the petitioners for leading entire evidence on the said date on their own responsibility before the respondents lead their rebuttal evidence.
In my opinion, it would be in the interest of justice, if
CR No.5265 of 2009
-2-
the petitioners are allowed to lead their entire evidence on their own responsibility on 26.09.2009. In case, any evidence is not led on that date, no further request in this regard shall be entertained. Petition stands disposed of.
Copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual
charges.
September 14, 2009 sonia
( AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE
Subodh Kumar and others
Shanti Devi and others
Ajay Tewari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
