ORDER:

Heard Sri I. Chandra Sekhar, learned counsel for the petitioners/petitioners.

2. The matter has been coming up today to find out whether the notice was served on the 1st respondent or not.

3. Today, learned counsel for the petitioners endorsed on the record that the 1st respondent is not a necessary party and notice be dispensed with for the 1st respondent and the present Civil Revision Petition is dismissed against the 1st respondent. Therefore, the present Civil Revision Petition stands dismissed as against the 1st respondent as requested by learned counsel for the petitioners. 4. Perused the material on record.

5. In M.V.O.P.No.368 of 2015 on the file of the Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal-Cum-V Additional District Judge, East Godavari District at Rajamahendravaram, a claim for compensation was moved by the petitioners with reference to the death of one of their family members. The trial commenced and after recording the evidence of P.W.1, at request of learned counsel for the claimants, further evidence was closed. However, thereafter, there was change of idea and the claimants intended to adduce the evidence of an eye witness in the form of P.W.2 and moved I.A.No.808 of 20