[2025:RJ-JP:22137] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8045/2025 1. Shabana Bano W/o Manzoor Qureshi, Aged About 32 Years, R/o House No. 41, Qureshi Colony, Khetri House Road, Gali No. 1, Outside Chandpole, Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur (Raj). 2. Mohammad Dishan S/o Manzoor Qureshi, Aged About 11 Years, R/o House No. 41, Qureshi Colony, Khetri House Road, Gali No. 1, Outside Chandpole, Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur (Raj). 3. Ikra Bano D/o Manzoor Qureshi, Aged About 8 Years, Petitioner No. 2 And 3 Are Minors Through Their Natural Mother Shabana Bano W/o Manzoor Qureshi. R/o House No. 41, Qureshi Colony, Khetri House Road, Gali No. 1, Outside Chandpole, Police Station Sanjay Circle, Jaipur (Raj). ----Petitioners Versus 1. Umesh Meena S/o Nandkishore Meena, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Behind Patwar Bhawan Near Kanya Pathshala, Harmara, Jaipur Driver And Owner Of Car No. Rj-14-Vc-9867 (Diedon 03-06-19 In Place Of ) Legal Heirs-Superdgidar-Malik 1/1. Sushila Meena W/o Late Umesh Meena, R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Behind Patwar Bhawan Near Kanya Pathshala, Harmara, Jaipur 1/2. Sonam D/o Late Umesh Meena, Minor Through Guardian Mother Sushila Meena R/o Meeno Ka Mohalla, Behind Patwar Bhawan Near Kanya Pathshala, Harmara, Jaipur 2. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Through Zonal Office Manager Office-I, L And B-2, Galaxy Cinema Riico Industry Area Mansarovar, Jaipur Where The Vehicle Car No. Rj-14-Vc-9867 Is Insured. 3. Zahoor Mohammad Qureshi S/o Gheesa Qureshi, Aged About 75 Years, R/o H.no 41, Qureshi Colony, Khetri House Rode, Gali No. 1, Out Side Chandpol Police Station, Sanganer Circle, Jaipur (Raj). 4. Smt. Maksudan W/o Zahoor Mohammed Qureshi, Aged [2025:RJ-JP:22137] (2 of 3) [CW-8045/2025] About 65 Years, R/o H.no 41, Qureshi Colony, Khetri House Rode, Gali No. 1, Out Side Chandpol Police Station, Sanganer Circle, Jaipur (Raj). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tamoliya with Mr. Sarthak Palaria HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPMAN Order 26/05/2025 This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the order dated 12.05.2025 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan-II, Jaipur (for brevity, “learned MACT”) whereby, an application filed by the petitioners/claimants for reopening of their evidence has been dismissed. Assailing the order, the only contention advanced by the learned counsel for claimants is that they could not lead evidence on account of unavoidable circumstances and they may be given only one opportunity to lead their entire evidence. They, therefore, pray that the writ petition be allowed, order impugned dated 12.05.2025 be quashed and set aside and they may be afforded one more opportunity to lead their entire evidence. Heard. Considered. Indisputably, evidence of the claimants was closed by the learned MACT vide order dated 09.04.2025 only when, despite availing sufficient opportunities, they failed to lead it. Ordinarily, this Court would not have interfered with the order impugned rejecting claimants’ application for reopening the evidence in the [2025:RJ-JP:22137] (3 of 3) [CW-8045/2025] aforesaid circumstances; however, taking into consideration the object and spirit of the provisions of the Act of 1988 which are beneficial in nature for the claimants and in the peculiar facts of this case wherein, the claimants are seeking compensation on account of death of only bread winner in the family, this Court deems it just and proper and in the interest of justice to afford the claimants one more opportunity to lead their evidence. In view thereof, this writ petition is disposed of in following terms without issuing notice to the respondents to obviate further delay and not to enburden them with unnecessary litigation cost: 1. The order dated 12.05.2025 is quashed and set aside. 2. The claimants are granted one opportunity to lead their entire evidence either on the next date fixed before the learned Tribunal or within a period of four weeks thereafter, if the learned Tribunal so directs. 3. If the respondents feel aggrieved by this order, they are at liberty to move an application for its recalling. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of accordingly. (ANIL KUMAR UPMAN),J GAUTAM JAIN /76