IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 16329 of 2025 ==========================================================

ABHISHEK RAJAN RANIP (PANANGAT)

Versus SUNITABEN WD/O DECD. RAJUBHAI PAULBHAI KHRISTI & ORS.

==========================================================

Appearance:

MR AJAY L PANDAV(3660) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 MR RAJESH B DESAI(1216) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1 ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HASMUKH D. SUTHAR Date : 04/12/2025

ORAL ORDER

[1.0] By way of present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought for an appropriate writ/ direction directing to quash and set aside the impugned orders dated 10.10.2025 passed below Exh.47 i.e. Witness Summons application as well as order dated 03.10.2025 (Annexure-A Colly) passed below Exh.55 i.e. Witness Summons Application passed by the learned 3^rd Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Petlad in MACP No.71/2019.

[2.0] Having heard learned advocate for the petitioner and perusing the record, it appears that the present petitioner is original respondent No.2 i.e. the owner of Yamaha Motorcycle bearing No.GJ-1-ED-559 and opponent No.2 in MACP No.71 of 2019 (Old MACP No.1287/2010 & 483/2016), which is pending before the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, at Petlad. The alleged accident took place in the year 2009 and claim petition was filed in the year 2010 pursuant to which the claimants filed MACP No.1287/2010 in connection with which the opponents were duly served and they appeared before the concerned Tribunal at Kheda. As the learned Tribunal, at Kheda was not having jurisdiction, matter was transferred on 10.10.2016 to Anand and matter was renumbered as MACP No.483/2016. Thereafter, the claimants preferred an amendment application as their residential address was changed and subsequently, once again, the matter was transferred to the Court of learned Tribunal, at Petlad and renumbered as MACP No.71/2019. Thereafter, vide order dated 15.11.2019, the learned Tribunal passed an order below Exh.5 and deleted the opponent No.1 – driver of motorcycle. As opponent No.2 remained absent before the learned Tribunal, an ex parte order was passed on 12.03.2021 against which an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC being MACMA No.72/2021 came to be filed for restoration of original claim petition bearing MACP No.71/2019, which was allowed on 25.11.2022 and matter was restored to its original file subject to petitioner depositing 50% of the amount of compensation as awarded by the learned Tribunal in MACP No.71/2019. In the pending proceeding, the petitioner preferred an application Exh.43 under the provisions of Order 17 Rule 5 of the CPC for framing suggested issues in the main claim petition, which is till date pending.

[2.1] Further, it is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had also filed an application Exh.47 requesting to issue summons to two witnesses namely (1) Investigating Officer, Sarkhej Police Station, Ahmedabad and (2) Maheshbhai Karshanbhai Marwadi. The learned Tribunal has been pleased to issue summons subject to payment of bhattha allowance of Rs.1000/- to the witnesses. Witness No.2 namely Maheshbhai Marwadi remained present before the learned Tribunal while the Witness No.1 i.e.

Investigating Officer of Sarkhej Police Station was not found. As the Investigating Officer has filed summary which is produced at Exh.20, fresh summons was issued considering the fact that the said witness is not required to be examined. Another application Exh.55 was filed for issuance of witness summons to the Medical Officer which was also dismissed.

[2.2] Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned orders passed below Exh.47 and Exh.55, the petitioner has approached this Court.

[3.0] In aforesaid background, if we peruse the record, it appears that one witness is already examined. So far as another witness i.e. Investigating O