ORDER
S.K. Seth, J.
1. Mr. S. Abhayankar, learned Counsel for the petitioners.
2. None for the respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Mr. S.V. Dandawate, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 3.
4. Mr. C.P. Singh, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 4.
5. Mr. Dandawate assured the Court that he would file the Vakalatmama on behalf of respondent No. 3 within a week. Mr. Abhayankar, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners submitted that respondent Nos. 1 and 2 were ex parte before the Claims Tribunal.
6. With consent, arguments heard.
7. The present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is directed against the proceedings dated 2.11.2004 recorded by XXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 25/04. By the order impugned, learned M.A.C.T. refused to grant adjournment to the petitioners and closed their right to lead evidence. Petitioners are claimants before the learned M.A.C.T. On 2.11.2004, the examination-in-chief of affidavit of the petitioner No. 1 was filed but a short adjournment was sought for the cross-examination of petitioner No. 1. Learned M.A.C.T. refused the adjournment and closed the right to lead evidence on behalf of the claimants.
8. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties. In the considered opinion of this Court, petitioners have made a good and sufficient ground. On 2.11.2004 petitioner No. 1 was required to appear in the internal examination. The certificate issued by the lecturer has also been filed. No doubt, there is a provision in the C.P.C. not to grant more than 3 adjournments but no hard and fast or rigid rules can be applied universally. The procedural rules as contained in the C.P.C. are for advancing the interests of justice and not for throttling. In order to do complete justice between the parties especially looking to the fact that claim was lodged under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, the order impugned passed by the XXth Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Indore in Claim Case No. 25/04 is hereby set aside. Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on 2.2.2005. On that date petitioner No. 1 shall also offer herself for the cross-examination, if any by the other side.
9. In view of the aforesaid discussion, writ petition is allowed. However, there shall be no orders as to costs.