JUDGMENT : M.N. Bhandari, J. By this writ petition, a challenge is made to the order dated 20th November, 2015 passed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The application preferred by the petitioners to seek permission to produce eye witness was dismissed. 2. It is a case where a claim petition was filed by the petitioners followed by reply by the contesting respondents. The petitioners produced two witnesses and after it, their evidence was closed on 18th September, 2012. The other party produced their evidence and it was recorded on 28th October, 2013. The matter was kept for final hearing and remained pending for two years. Thereupon, an application was filed by the petitioners to produce eye witness. The application aforesaid was dismissed by the Court. 3. Learned counsel submits that an opportunity may be given to produce the evidence and, for which, a reference of the judgment of this Court in the case of Maya Devi v. Justice, MACT, Tonk & Ors. reported in 2004(3) WLC (Raj.) 440 has been given. 4. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel and perused the record. In a claim petition preferred by the petitioners, two witnesses were produced and evidence was closed on 18th September, 2012. The evidence of other party was also recorded on 28th October, 2013 and matter remain pending for final arguments for two years. At that stage, an application to allow production of so called eye witness was submitted. The application has been dismissed finding no justification of delay of more than three years from closing evidence of the petitioners and after recording the evidence of other party. 5. Learned counsel was asked as to why so called eye witness was not produced at the time when they were having an opportunity. No proper explanation could be given. It is otherwise a claim petition filed in the year 2008 and by time, the application was dismissed, a period of seven years had already passed. If the petitioners was to produce eye witness, could have been produced along with the other witnesses and if he was not coming to depose statement then to make an application to summon him. However, no such effort was made. The other party was allowed to produce evidence and, thereupon also, matter remained pending for two years to argue the case finally. However, no such effort was made. The other party was allowed to produce evidence and, thereupon also, matter remained pending for two years to argue the case finally. At this stage, if application is filed to produce the witness then it not only remains suspicious but goes without justification of delay for non-production of witness earlier. The party opposite has already produced his evidence thus permission to produce additional witness would affect other party. 6. So far as the judgment in the case of Maya Devi (supra) is concerned, the application was allowed as other party was not to be effected but, in the instant case, the respondents have already produced evidence and now if the evidence by the petitioners is allowed, it will cause prejudice to them. 7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid and the period of unexplained delay, I do not find any reason to cause interference in the impugned order, hence, the writ petition is dismissed. 8. The MACT, Tonk is, however, directed to dispose of pending appeal within a period of one month from the date of receipt of copy of this order, if not yet decided. A copy of this order be sent to MACT, Tonk by the Registrar (Judicial).