NEW INDIA ASSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED Vs. JASVIR KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As per report of the Registry, respondents No.1, 2 and 4 stand served. Further, as per report of the Registry, notice issued to respondent No.3 is still awaited. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for the purpose of adjudication of the present petition, presence of respondent No.3 is not necessary. As none has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, they are ordered to be proceeded against ex parte.

(2.) By way of this petition, petitioner has challenged order dated 10.05.2019, vide which evidence of present petitioner, who is a respondent before the learned Tribunal, has been closed by the learned Tribunal by passing the following order:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the impugned order per-se is perverse and not sustainable in law as while passing the said order, learned Tribunal erred in not appreciating that all that could have been done by present petitioner to ensure presence of the witness was done and because the witness who was to depose in the Court was not the employee of present petitioner, petitioner could not have forced him to appear in Court. He further submitted that in case the witness was not responding to the notices, which were duly served upon him to appear in the witness box, then duty was cast upon the Court to have had secured his presence and for the acts or omission of the said witness, petitioner could not have been punished/ made to suffer as has been done by the learned Tribunal by passing the impugned order.