SEEMA AND ORS. Vs. RAVI PATNI AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claimants are aggrieved by order dated 03.07.2015 closing the evidence of the claimants. Learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn my attention to the impugned order passed by the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal. Rohtak vide which cross-examination of PW-9 Amit Kumar a witness of petitioners themselves, has been declined.

(2.) Perusal of the proceedings dated 27.05.2015 indicates that the statement of said PW was recorded as per provisions of Order 18 Rule 4 CPC by way of tendering his affidavit Ex. PW9/A in his examination-in-chief. A request was made by the petitioners to the Tribunal to permit the cross-examination of the witness when he did not stick to his affidavit during cross-examination by respondents. As per provisions of Section 154 of the Indian Evidence Act, the Court in its discretion can permit a person to put question to his own witness. Once the said permission had been granted on 27.05.2015 and the Court had deferred the further cross-examination on the request of counsel for the petitioners, the witness should have been bound for a particular date. In case no such direction had been passed, the application of the petitioners for recalling the witness deserve to be allowed, in view of such permission having been granted on oral request on 27.05.2015.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners want to examine MHC of concerned police station and his diet money has already been deposited. It has also been brought to my notice that the petitioners want to examine another witness, with whom the deceased was working in order to establish his income. Counsel is not aware whether any application had been filed by the petitioners mentioning the name of said witness.