- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Mr. Hemant Jain, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that three identical writ petitions have been disposed of by a coordinate bench of this Court in the following terms. One copy of such order dated 7.2.2012 passed by a coordinate bench of this Court in S.B.C.W.P. No. 1012 of 2012, Mahaveer & Anr. v. Kalu Ram & Ors., is placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioners, in which it has been held as under: "Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that although some time was granted by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Srikaranpur to file reply to petitioners (driver and owner of tractor) but due to unavoidable circumstances, they did not file reply, therefore, in the interest of justice, one opportunity to file reply to claim petition may be granted. After perusing the order impugned dated 17.9.2011 and order sheets dated 22.10.2011 and 30.11.2011 it appears that after passing order to close the opportunity to file reply, nothing has been done in the claim petition filed by the respondents, therefore, in the interest of justice, the order dated 17.9.2011 is hereby quashed to the extent of closing opportunity to file reply and the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sri Karanpur is directed to grant one opportunity to file their reply on next date of hearing. Upon filing reply, the same may be taken on record. If reply is not filed on next date of hearing, then the Tribunal will be at liberty to proceed further without reply. With these direction/observations, this writ petition is disposed of."
(3.) Mr. Himmat Jagga, learned counsel for the respondents is unable to controvert these submissions.;