IN THE HON'BLE HIGHtOURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (•1 fC.G.) CIVIL REVISION N0. JQ OF 2010 APPLICANTS Defendants /. ...V5 T.' y'\^ ^'^'Q>- ^•^"\.^ »•••" •^* s** ''.' '\.\'s"~' ,^xl NON-APPLICANTS; Plaintiffs .us^yi :^''5:^^.:. • ^•s,ls?s^'% ^A ?r?'w> S~. Kamalnarayan S/o Bhanuram Lodhi Rajput, aged about 35 years, R/o Village Beltukri, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) Umasharan, S/o Bhanuram Lodhi, aged about 41 years, R/o Village Beltukri, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) VERSUS Indra Bai Widow Dharmendra Banjare, aged about 22 years, Caste-Satnami, Occupation Housewife, Ku. Heena, D/o late Dhamendra Banjare, aged about 03 month Minor, Through: natural guardian mother Indra Bai, Panchram, S/o Samaru Satnami aged about 50 years, Phulbasa Bai, W/o Panchram Satnami, aged about 47 years, Occupation Housewife, All R/o Village Patnakapa, Police Station Nandghat, Tahsil Navagarh, District Durg (C.G.) "'*<'^: CIVIL^EyISIONUNDER_SECTIQINOl50FJH^^ PRQCEDURE -HC-78 *ll*1ril ^V^S \d-oTl T<ii<<irt<<, i.»-al<H'i|<o,fslrtwyt ..^..^.. aii^srm R'li* asHsn^sTriiiicb Sahu 3IT^?TtR^ ('idtd'l^) ^201 & g^iTSR^flaan^sT S.B. Hon'ble Shri Justice N.K. Or 25.1.2010 Shri PP Sahu, Advocati) Heard on admission. The instant revision iq 04.12.2009, passed by Tribunal (FTC), Bemetara, (f^i No. 52/09, whereby and wh|e been decided against the jurisdiction to hear the matterj Shri Sahu, learned submits that the Tribunal ou^ alongwith issue No. 11 . After hearing Shri Sah(i applicants, in the considered| devoid of substance so far s|s Shri Sahu could not point out| issue No. 2 is concerned, th^ same on its own merits in evidence ofthe parties. Accordingly, the revis| dismissed at admission stage). WiqfCT<S1l 11inVfffa'<) •([•Jl'l^l'! Aaarwal ^sif^^" t^ for the applicants. directed against the order dated Aflditional Motor Accidents Claims short 'the Tribunal') in Claim Case ireunder the preliminary issue has apijilicants holding that the Tribunal has c<<unsel appearing for the applicants kht to have decided the issue No. 2 i, learned counsel appearing for the opinion of this court, the revision is s the order impugned is concerned. any jurisdictional illegality. So far as Tribunal Would certainly decide the iccordance with law after recording esfs> bns deseyVesJo be and is hereby / Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge