M.N. Bhandari, J. - (1.) By filing this writ Petition, challenge has been made to the dt. 27.04.2009 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (Additional District and Session Judge (Fast Track No. 1) Jaipur City, Jaipur.
(2.) The petitioner made an application for calling Dr. P.C. Joshi, Senior Surgeon, Kanwatia Hospital, Jaipur in evidence to prove his disability certificate. The prayer so made was opposed by the non-claimants and after hearing the parties, the Court below dismissed the application.
(3.) From the pleading it becomes clear that the matter was pending consideration before the Court below from the year 2004 and by 02.07.2007, 4 witnesses were examined and thereupon additional affidavit was filed showing that on 10.11.2002 a disability certificate was issued which is said to be interim disability certificate and according to the petitioner, the final disability certificate was issued on 21.06.2007. The Tribunal has take note of the fact that when the disability certificate was issued initially, the disability was shown to be only not "Not below 6%" and in the other disability certificate it is shown to be 20.81%. Learned Court below has taken note of the fact that the matte was ending for final arguments since 09.08.2007 and on 09.08.2007 NAW1 Surajmal had stated that the case of the petitioner to be false, through subsequently in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9366/2007 filed by the petitioner, an interim direction was passed by the High Court holding that statement of Surajmal may not be read in evidence except his cross-examination by the petitioner. It is stated that thereafter opportunity was given to the parties to argue the matter finally and by now a period of two years has already passed. The learned Court below has considered that looking to the way certificate has been issued and with delay such application was bee filed, the prayer made in the application cannot be accepted. Reference of judgment reported in 1986 ACJ 703 (MP) has been taken note of. It was also taken note of that on 02.07.2007, the claimant himself stated regarding closing of his witnesses, thus, referring to another judgment reported in 1998 (1) TAC 290 (Orr.) it was held that prayer made by the petitioner now cannot be accepted for opening of the evidence. Looking to the aforesaid, the application was rejected and the matter was posted for hearing on 25.05.2009.;