JUDGMENT : 

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

1. This is a revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram, whereby the evidence of the claimant has been closed by order.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is claimant who had filed claim petition under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the issues were framed in the present case on 20.05.2022. It is further submitted that the petitioner had examined six witnesses and thereafter, on 03.04.2023, he had moved an application for summoning the concerned authorized person/Record Keeper of Rajasthan Roadways along with relevant record and had also deposited diet money with respect to the same. It is submitted that the said witness was duly served on 18.04.2023 as is apparent from tracking report which has been annexed as Annexure P-5 along with the present petition. It is submitted that in spite of the above, the trial Court, vide impugned order, instead of enforcing the presence of the said witness and taking coercive steps, had closed the evidence of the petitioner by order. It is submitted that the impugned order vide which the evidence of the petitioner has been closed deserves to be set aside as the same has been passed without following the procedure as prescribed in the provision of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC. It is submitted that only one witness who is summoned witness is to be examined and for the said purpose, effective opportunity be granted to the petitioner, with the help of the Court to examine the said witness.

3. On 20.09.2023, a Coordinate Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-

“Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner.

***

The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside impugned order dated 12.05.2023 (Annexure P-4), passed by the learned MACT, Gurugram, whereby evidene of the petitioner/claimant has wrongly been closed by Court order.

Notice of motion to respondent No.2 only, returnable on 01.12.2023.

In the meantime, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Gurugram is directed to adjourn the proceedings beyond the date fixed before this Court.

20.09.2023”

4. On 01.12.2023, contesting respondent No.2 was served but none has appeared on behalf of said respondent No.2. Even thereafter, none had put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.2 and even today, no one has come to oppose the present revision petition. Respondent No.1 has been proceeded against ex-parte before the trial Court which fact is apparent from the impugned order dated 12.05.2023 and thus, notice was issued to only respondent No.2.

5. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and has perused the paper book and is of the opinion that impugned order is against law and deserves to be set aside and the present revision petition deserves to be allowed.

6. This Court in its earlier judgment dated 29.07.2024 passed in CR-3734-2023 titled Inder Pal and another Vs. Sat Pal (now deceased) through his LRs and others, has held as under:-

“A perusal of the zimni orders would show that although coercive steps were taken to secure the presence of other witnesses but no coercive steps were taken to secure the presence of the above said two witnesses, who are material witnesses. It is a matter of settled law that as per the provisions of Order 16 Rule 10 CPC, where a witness fails to comply with the summons of the Court and the evidence of the said witness is material, then in such a situation, the Court is required to take coercive steps including issuance of warrants, moreso when the party leading its evidence has done all that is in their hand for summoning them through the Court, which would include deposit of process fee and diet money, as has been done in the present case. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 12.07.2000 passed in CR-