ORDER : 1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioner assailing the orders dated 13.03.2019 and 20.01.2020 passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, No.2, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur (for short “the Tribunal”), dismissing his two application. 2. At the outset, learned counsel for the petitioner does not press the relief qua the order dated 13.03.2019. 3. Assailing the order dated 20.01.2020, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Tribunal has erred in closing its evidence without summoning the Constable-Subhash as court witness. He submits that to establish its defence, Subhash was required to be summoned as Court witness and the learned Tribunal erred in closing petitioner’s evidence without summoning him. Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on Rule 10.17 of the Rajasthan Motor Vehicles Rules, 1990 (for short “the Rules of 1990”) to buttress his submissions. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. 5. A perusal of the application dated 20.01.2020 filed by the petitioner reveals that the petitioner never applied to summon the witness in terms of Rule 10.17 of the Rules of 1990 which is pari materia to the Order 16 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The petitioner failed to assign any reason as to why the Constable-Subhash should be summoned as court witness instead of summoning as petitioner-witness. 6. A perusal of the order impugned herein reveals that the Tribunal has made categorical observation that the Insurance Company is free to produce Subhash on its own and whenever it applies for summoning him, summon may be given “dasti” to the Insurance Company to secure his production. I find no illegality or perversity in the order dated 20.01.2020 warranting interference of this Court in its supervisory jurisdiction vide Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 7. Resultantly, the writ petition is dismissed. The stay application filed along with the writ petition also stands disposed of.