HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JAIPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Sudesh Bansal, J
SMT. ANITA W/O LATE MEETHU LAL RAIGAR – Appellant
Versus
DINESH KUMAR S/O PRABHU LAL – Respondent
CW / 17206 / 2024
Order :
1. Petitioners have filed instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , impugning the order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kekari, District Ajmer in case No.327/2022(11/20), dismissing applicants’ application to produce eye witness Rajender Singh. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
3. It is undisputed fact that the claim petition was filed by the petitioners way back on 04.01.2020 and the claimants have been given ample opportunities to adduce their evidence from 09.06.2022 to 03.05.2023. During this period, on behalf of claimants, claimant-petitioner No.1 Anita has got her statement recorded and subsequently, the evidence was closed. After closure of claimants’ evidence, the claim petition is pending for final hearing and at that stage, claimant moved an application to produce the witness Rajendra Singh, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order impugned.
4. Petitioners/ claimants were willing to produce their material witness Rajendra Singh being an eye witness, but no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the claimants for not producing him.
5. The Tribunal has assigned justified reasons and has dismissed the application in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, which do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error.
6. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India , is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, however, it is open for the petitioner to make a prayer to produce the witness Rajendra Singh at the appellate stage, in case, their claim petition is dismissed on account of non-production of eye witness Rajendra Singh.
7. With aforesaid liberty, the instant writ petition stands disposed of.
8. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of.
The Tribunal's discretion in allowing evidence is upheld, and a lack of sufficient reasons for delay in production of witness does not constitute a jurisdictional error.
The court reaffirmed that under Article 227, it has limited authority to interfere with Tribunal decisions unless there is a manifest error or illegality.
The court has the discretion to impose a cost for restoring the right to adduce evidence instead of closing the right, aiming to afford a fair trial.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.