JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company aggrieved against orders dated 07.02.2019 passed by Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Pali ( Tribunal ), whereby, witness of the petitioner - Insurance Company, who was present for his statement was not examined and the evidence of the petitioner - Insurance Company has been closed. 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petitions that three claim petitions were filed, arising out of an accident dated 16.06.2013; the service on all the defendants were completed on 09.06.2014; the petitioner - Insurance Company submitted its replies to the claim petitions on 29.10.2014; issues were framed on 03.05.2016; the applications filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company under Section 170 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 ( the Act of 1988 ) were allowed on 01.09.2016, on which date the evidence of the claimants was completed and closed; on 03.11.2016 the petitioner - Insurance Company submitted applications seeking deletion of its name on the allegations that the policy submitted by the claimants/owner & driver of the vehicle was forged and fabricated; on 07.12.2016 applications were filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company under Order XI, Rules 12 & 14 CPC requiring the owner & driver to produce the original policy and in absence, an adverse inference be drawn against them; wereafter several adjournments were sought by claimants and owner & driver to file replies to the applications. 3. The petitioner - Insurance Company in the meanwhile filed affidavit of one Abhishek Singh in evidence. 4. The Tribunal by its order dated 04.07.2018 decided the applications under Order XI, Rules 12 & 14 CPC and ordered that owner & driver be summoned as witnesses and required filing of the requisite PF & summons in this regard and it was directed that the said witnesses be summoned with record. 5. The requisite summons were filed. However, the witnesses did not appear. 5. The requisite summons were filed. However, the witnesses did not appear. Ultimately on 07.02.2019 the Tribunal observed that as per the order-sheet dated 04.07.2018 the witnesses are not being produced nor the requisite PF-notices have been filed and at 02:15 PM another witness has been produced and insistence was made for recording his statement, regarding which, the counsel for the claimants and the owner had objection and rejected the applications filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company for examination of the said witness & petitioner s evidence was closed. 6. Counsel for the petitioner - Insurance Company filed two applications on the same day, which applications were also rejected. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner - Insurance Company that the action of the Tribunal in passing the orders impugned is ex facie incorrect and has been out come of some apparent verbal altercations, which is apparent from the order-sheets. Submissions were made that once the witness was present, not recording his statement and closing the evidence is not justified and, therefore, the orders impugned deserve to be quashed and set aside. 8. Further submissions were made that the burden to produce the witnesses apparently was not on the petitioner - Insurance Company, inasmuch as, the applications under Order XI, Rules 12 & 14 CPC were filed and it was for the owner & driver to themselves produce the document and there was no question of summoning them as witnesses on part of the petitioner - Insurance Company and, therefore, the entire action of the Tribunal is ex facie incorrect and the same deserves to be quashed and set aside and petitioner - Insurance Company be permitted to lead its evidence. 9. Learned counsel for the respondents-claimants submitted that the petitioner - Insurance Company has not been co- operating with the Tribunal in expeditious disposal of the proceedings. Rightly or wrongly order was passed on 04.07.2018 for summoning the witnesses, however, the petitioner - Insurance Company did not take any steps to challenge the order dated 04.07.2018 nor did it summon the witnesses and produced a witness, who was not supposed to appear on that day and when the same was objected to, apparently counsel for the petitioner - Insurance Company made applications making unnecessary allegations. The claimants for non-disposal of the proceedings are suffering and, therefore, no interference is required in the orders impugned. 10. The claimants for non-disposal of the proceedings are suffering and, therefore, no interference is required in the orders impugned. 10. I haven considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. A bare perusal of the order dated 04.07.2018, which led to passing of the order dated 04.02.2019 reveals that while deciding applications under Order XI, Rules 12 & 14 CPC instead of ordering the parties i.e. owner & driver to produce the document, order requiring the petitioner - Insurance Company to summon the owner & driver alongwith documents, was passed. The petitioner - Insurance Company did not question validity of the said order and the proceedings continued to linger on. However, apparently when on 07.02.2019 the Tribunal took exception to non-production of the summoned witnesses, the petitioner - Insurance Company attempted to produce another witness and also made applications indicating the defect in the order dated 04.07.2018, which apparently annoyed the Presiding Officer, resulting in closing of the evidence. 12. As already noticed hereinbefore, the order dated 04.07.2018 was wholly defective, however, as the same was not questioned, the petitioner - Insurance Company was required to follow the said order and/or bring the aspect of defect in the order to the notice of the Tribunal. However, nothing was done and the matters kept on getting adjourned and suddenly when the Tribunal insisted for further proceedings, produced the witness, which apparently took the counsel for the claimants and owner & driver unawares, who opposed production of the said witness, when the counsel for the petitioner - Insurance Company apparently made remarks, which resulted in the annoyance of the Presiding Officer. 13. In circumstances like the present, the Presiding Officer is required to maintain the equilibrium and not got swayed by the charged atmosphere, at least while passing of the orders, as the order apparently was not justified, inasmuch as, once the witness was present, irrespective of the fact that the summoned witnesses were not present/steps were not taken for summoning them, the Tribunal could have closed the evidence of the summoned witnesses and examine the witness present. However, if the counsel for the claimants and owner were not prepared, the matter could have been adjourned by bounding the witness to remain present on the next date, however, the Tribunal closed the evidence, which order cannot be sustained. 14. However, if the counsel for the claimants and owner were not prepared, the matter could have been adjourned by bounding the witness to remain present on the next date, however, the Tribunal closed the evidence, which order cannot be sustained. 14. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company are allowed. The orders dated 07.02.2019 closing the evidence of the petitioner - Insurance Company is quashed and set aside. However, as the present writ petitions have been filed by the petitioner - Insurance Company after about 2 months of passing of the order dated 07.02.2019 and has been kept pending without any effective steps, except for filing applications seeking early hearing that also in the year 2020, it would be required of the petitioner - Insurance Company to pay costs of Rs. 2,000/- in each case to counsel for the claimants. Further, the evidence, if any, be produced by the petitioner - Insurance Company within a period of two weeks on a date to be fixed by the Tribunal. If witnesses are not produced on the said date, no further opportunity will be accorded to the petitioner - Insurance Company.