[2025:RJ-JP:4667] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1616/2025 Manna Lal Meena S/o Shri Surja Ram Meena, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Village Kundalya, Post- Sileebadi, Teh.- Thanagaji, Kundla, District-Alwar (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sonu Kumar Meena S/o Shri Vishram Meena, R/o Village Makreta, P.s. Laxmangarh, Disrtict- Alwar (Raj.) (At The Time Of Accident Driver Bolero Reg. No. No. Rj-14-Ub- 2382) 2. Sitaram Khadda S/o Shri Devaram Khadda, R/o Khadda Ki Dhani, Jobner, Teh.-Phoolera, Disrict Jaipur (At The Time Of Accident Owner Of Bolero Reg. No. Rj-14-Ub- 2382) 3. Hdfc Ergo General Insurance Company Ltd., Regional Office, C-99, Third Floor, Upasana Tower, C Scheme, Jaipur (Insurance Company Vehicle Owner Bolero Reg. No. No. Rj-14-Ub-2382, Validity From 26.02.2018 To 25.02.2019) Policy No. 2311 1002 8158 9200 000 ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Surbhi Khandelwal & Mr. Yogesh for Mr. D.D. Khandelwal For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL Order 03/02/2025 1. Petitioner-claimant has filed instant writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the interlocutory order dated 16.01.2025 passed by the Motor Accident Claim Tribunal No.1, Jaipur Metropolitan II (for short "the Tribunal") in MACT Case No.36/2019: Manna Lal Vs. Sonu Kumar, dismissing petitioner's application to produce one witness namely Sh. Asharam Meena in his evidence. 2. Heard counsel for petitioner and perused the record. [2025:RJ-JP:4667] (2 of 2) [CW-1616/2025] 3. It appears from record that the present claim petition was filed by petitioner wayback on 30.01.2019, wherein issues were framed on 10.01.2020, and petitioner was granted opportunities to adduce his evidence from 09.04.2020 to 19.11.2024. During that period, petitioner produced three witnesses. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed and the case was posted for recording evidence of non-claimants. At this stage, petitioner moved an application to produce one more witness viz. Sh. Asharam Meena, alleging him to be an eye witness. This application has been dismissed by the Tribunal vide order impugned dated 16.01.2025. Hence, the present writ petition. 4. This Court finds that the petitioner has not provided any specific/ justified reason for not producing witness Sh. Asharam Meena in his evidence during the period from 09.04.2020 to 19.11.2024. Moreover, the Tribunal has assigned justified reasons for not entertaining the application filed by petitioner. 5. This Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is not inclined to interfere with the order, which is well reasoned/ justified and does not call for any interference. 6. As a result, the present writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. 7. All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (SUDESH BANSAL),J Sachin/47