( 1 ) IN a Motor Accident Claims case the petitioner claimant preferred an application to summon a witness and to allow him to be examined on his behalf. The application was submitted at a late stage that is at the stage of the argument of the case. This has been rejected by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (No. 3) Ahmedabad. The decision of the Tribunal below Exhibit 128 in Motor Accident Claims Application No. 225 of 1981 is challenged by filing the present Civil Revision application.

( 2 ) THE petitioner herein is the original claimant who has suffered some injury on account of an accident and for the purposes of recovery of compensation he filed the aforesaid claim application before the Tribunal. It appears that after the evidence of the petitioner was over and after the other side filed pursis to the effect that it did not wish to lead any oral evidence and the date on which the matter was fixed for hearing of the arguments of the parties the petitioner submitted a application Exhibit 128 and prayed that a witness named Shri J. P Sehgal Public Relations Officer of the Gujarat Small Industries Corpo- ration be summoned and be allowed to be examined as a witne