[2025:RJ-JP:4867] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 17206/2024 1. Smt. Anita W/o Late Meethu Lal Raigar, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Sankariya, Tehsil Kekari, District Ajmer. 2. Hemant S/o Late Meethu Lal Raigar, Aged About 16 Years, 3. Teena D/o Late Shri Meethu Lal Raigar, Aged About 12 Years, 4. Khushi D/o Late Shri Meethu Lal Raigar, Aged About 10 Years, 5. Gheesa Lal @ Ghasi Lal S/o Godu Lal Raigar, Aged About 59 Years, 6. Sohni W/o Gheesa Lal @ Ghasi Lal Raigar, Aged About 56 Years, Petitioners No.2 to 4 are Minor Through their Mother And Natural Guardian Smt. Anita W/o Late Meethu Lal Raigar, All resident of Sankariya, Tehsil Kekari, District Ajmer. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Dinesh Kumar S/o Prabhu Lal, R/o Harijan Basti, Kekari, District Kekari, District Ajmer (Driver Motor Cycle No. Rj- 26-Sv-2647) 2. Vikram Singh Rathore S/o Shri Bhawani Singh Rathore, R/o Gadh Ke Ander, Dabad Dumba, Tehsil And Thana Todarai Singh, District Tonk. (Owner Motor Cycle No. Rj- 26-Sv-2647) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Having Its Divisional Office At Opposite Sbbj, Riico Industrial Area, Parbatpura Kekari, District Ajmer, District Kekari, District Ajmer Through Its Divisional Manager (Insurance Company Motor Cycle No. Rj-26-Sv-2647) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vijay Mathur For Respondent(s) : [2025:RJ-JP:4867] (2 of 3) [CW-17206/2024] HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 04/02/2025 1. Petitioners have filed instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, impugning the order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal No.2, Kekari, District Ajmer in case No.327/2022(11/20), dismissing applicants’ application to produce eye witness Rajender Singh. 2. Heard counsel for the petitioners and perused the record. 3. It is undisputed fact that the claim petition was filed by the petitioners way back on 04.01.2020 and the claimants have been given ample opportunities to adduce their evidence from 09.06.2022 to 03.05.2023. During this period, on behalf of claimants, claimant-petitioner No.1 Anita has got her statement recorded and subsequently, the evidence was closed. After closure of claimants’ evidence, the claim petition is pending for final hearing and at that stage, claimant moved an application to produce the witness Rajendra Singh, which has been dismissed by the Tribunal by order impugned. 4. Petitioners/ claimants were willing to produce their material witness Rajendra Singh being an eye witness, but no sufficient reasons have been assigned by the claimants for not producing him. 5. The Tribunal has assigned justified reasons and has dismissed the application in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction, which do not suffer from any perversity or jurisdictional error. [2025:RJ-JP:4867] (3 of 3) [CW-17206/2024] 6. This Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction, enshrined under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the order impugned, however, it is open for the petitioner to make a prayer to produce the witness Rajendra Singh at the appellate stage, in case, their claim petition is dismissed on account of non-production of eye witness Rajendra Singh. 7. With aforesaid liberty, the instant writ petition stands disposed of. 8. Any other pending application(s), if any, stands disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J SOURAV /21