JUDGMENT N. PRUSTY, J. — This writ petition has been filed by the wife of one Sukanta Kumar Behera, who sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on 09.09.2001, representing her injured and insane husband, challenging the order dated 05.03.2007 passed in Misc. Case No.35 of 2002 pending in the file of the learned 3rd M.A.C.T.-cum-Additional District Judge, Angul, in rejecting the petition filed by the petitioner for time to adduce further evidence, by examining the Doctor, who was treating her husband and also to examine the employer of her husband. In this writ petition she has prayed for appropriate orders to provide ade¬quate opportunity to adduce relevant evidence by recalling order dated 05.03.2005 of the Tribunal. Heard Mr. Biswajit Mohanty, learned counsel for the peti¬tioner and Mr. G. P. Dutta, learned counsel for the opposite parties. As it appears, vide order dated 21.02.2007, on an application filed by the petitioner, the case was adjourned to 05.03.2007 for the purpose of adducing evidence on behalf of the petitioner with the observation that no further adjournment will be allowed on that date. On 05.03.2007 again another application was filed on behalf of the petitioner for adjournment of the case to another date for examination of the Doctor, along with the letter dated 05.03.2007 issued by the Associate Professor, Or¬thopaedic, V.S.S. Medical College, Burla wherein the Doctor has expressed that he is not in a position to attend the Court on that date due to illness of his mother. Thereafter a memo was filed by opposite party No.2/Insurance Company for closure of the evidence of the petitioner and to take evidence of opposite party No.2. In the memo it has also been mentioned to take up the case on 31.03.2007 for evidence of opposite party No.2. Considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and after perusal of the records, learned Tribunal rejected the prayer of the petitioner with the observation that the action of the petitioner makes it transpar¬ent that she is trying to drag the proceeding deliberately and finally he posted the case to 07.03.2007 for evidence of opposite party No.2. However, considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and after going through the contents of the writ petition as well as keeping in view the fact that in case the petitioner’s prayer for examining the treating physician and the employer of her late husband is not allowed, it will be difficult on the part of the petitioner to support her case with regard to the extent of injuries sustained by her husband, his present health condition, pain and sufferings, insanity of her husband as well as the exact quantum of loss. Under these circumstances, it will also be difficult on the part of the learned Tribunal to assess the exact loss and the amount of compensation to which the petitioner is entitled. As such if the order dated 05.03.2007 is not recalled, petitioner shall be highly prejudiced and also suffer irreparable loss, which cannot be repaired/com¬pensated at the subsequent stage. In view of the above, order dated 05.03.2007 is recalled and it is directed that both the parties shall appear before the learned Tribunal on 27.07.2007. On that date, the petitioner shall also produce his witnesses for their examination. It is made clear that if on that date the petitioner fails to produce the witnesses for adducing evidence before the learned Tribunal, then the evidence on the side of the petitioner shall be closed and another date shall be fixed for evidence of opposite party No.2. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of. Petition disposed of.