ORDER

This petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India has been filed against the order dated 07.02.2023 passed by 3rd Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Waidhan, District Singrauli in MACC No. 71/2019 by which the right of petitioners to file written statement has been closed.

2. From the impugned order, it is clear that as many as 20 opportunities were granted to petitioners to file written statement but petitioners failed to submittheir written statements. Accordingly, by order dated 29.06.2022 the right of petitioners to file their written statement was closed and the case was fixed for recording of evidence of claimants. Thereafter, it appears that petitioners have filed an application for grant of one more opportunity to file their writtenstatement. Their application has been rejected by order dated 07.02.2023.

3. It is submitted by counsel for petitioners that this petition is by way of mercy and if the right of petitioners to file written statement is not restored, then they would suffer irreparable loss.

4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for petitioners.

5. The Claims Tribunal in the impugned order has specifically mentioned that in spite of 20 opportunities granted to petitioners, petitioners did not file their written statement.

6. Petitioners have not filed the copies of the order-sheets of the Claims Tribunal to show that they were not granted 20 opportunities to file their written statement. Thus, there is no reason to disbelieve the fact that in spite of 20 opportunities, the petitioners did not file their written statement.

7. Once their right to file the written statement was closed by order dated29.06.2022, petitioners should have assailed the said order by filing miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India. It is not known as to whether the said remedy was availed by petitioners or not? However, the subsequent application for grant of one more opportunity to file (G.S. AHLUWALIA) JUDGE written statement would amount to review and as per the provisions of Order 47Rule 1 of C.P.C. review can be entertained only if there is any error apparent on face of record.

8. Counsel for petitioners could not point out any error apparent on the faceof the order dated 29.06.2022.

9. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Claims Tribunal did not commit any mistake by rejecting the application filed by petitioners for grant of one more opportunity to file written statement.

10. Accordingly, the petition fails and is hereby dismissed. AL