6 F l cr/w IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR @Z /2ooa 17— CL) WRIT PETITION {3} N0. PETITIONER ax ‘ " $ Non-Applicant No.2 /" Bhuvanlal Sinha S/o Shri Guhled Ram agéd about 54 years, R/o Bathena, Jail Road, Dhamtan', Town, Tahsil and District Dhamtari, (C.G.) Occupation— Sapna Electricals, Opposite Bus Stand, Dhamtari (C.G.) VERSUS Q‘’ RESPowQENTs WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 'r AMA”; r w ‘ Q v Applicant 1} Gopal Krishna Bagde; Aged about / 50 Years, S/o shn' Harishankar Bagde, R/o Amlipara, Post— Chanagao, Thana—Arjuni, Tahsil— Nagri, District Dhamtari (C.G.) Non—Applicant No. 1 2) Prafulla Kumar Mandavi, Aged /(” about 30 Years; S/o Shri Ankalu Ram, Occupation — business of Tap Boaring, R/o Village Devi Nawagaon, Thana— Naharpur, Tahsil and District Kanker (C.G.) Non—Applicant No.3 3) r Chhattisgarh State Electricity / Board, Through —Executive Director, Dangania Office, Raipur Town Tahsil and District Raipur (C.G.) XI—HC-78 EW,W,W Wm . Wag; LL; mmWw) ”61H...in 2007 WWW WWW mmmm WW§WW %a?%1¢311%31 22.01.2007 Shri S.S.Rajput, counsel Heard, This patiu'an is dir€c16d against the order dated 20.09.2006 passed by *the Raipur in Case No. 275/2002— W.C. Act (Fatal) whereby tne tribunal has allowed the application of the respondent under Section151 of the CPC and reviewed its own order by which it gave opportunity to adduce evidence and a last opportunity was given to the respondent to adduce evidence of its claim. Learned counsel for tli tn'burial has no jurisdiction discretion was alreadv exercis opportunity of adducing eviden the order impugned could not was Without jurisdiction. From the pleadings in i matter was posted for recorc 19.09.2005 and on that dati claimant to adduce evidence. for this patitionEr. Commissioner for Workmen’s Compensation, Labour Court, Ie petitioner submits that the i0 review its own order. Since ed by the tribunal earlier and ce was closed on the earlier date have been assed and the same he petition it appeals that the ling of claimants’ evidence on 3 tribunal closed the right of Sub sequently the application preferred under Section 151 01f the CPC dated 25.08.2006 was allowed on 20.09.2006 bv ttunity to adduce evidence. respondent was given last oppo the impugned order and the f p Xl-HC—78 @f EW,W,W kt; fag). . . £1. m; 2007 WWW WWW ma1%aan?m af WW§WW %31%111311%2T I haVE heard counsel for Th6 patitioner has not which right of ,respondsnt tc Nevsrthelcss considering the f WW<W) he petitioner. led the order of the tribunal by adduce evidence was closed. act that to allow opportunity of adducing evidence to a party is within the jun'sdiction of the concerned. tribunal. Further C< given last opportunity of addu that the matter mav be decide opinion that there is no procm nibunal which calie for inteii Constitution of India. With petition is devoid of substance 8d]- Dhirendra Mishralf: )nsidering that the tribunal has 3mg evidence to the claimant so d on merits this Court is of the lural illegality committed by the erence under Article 227 of the the aforesaid observation the and it is hereby dismissed. ”tn/a ,/7 Judge A? P.T.O.