13. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P. (Art.2271 No.4379 ot 2011 Petitioners 1. Smt.Komal @ Kalindri, Age-28 Yrs, (Ciaimants) W/o Late Shri Sahsblal Ratre, 2. Ku.Manisha, Age-11 yrs, Minor D/o Late Shri Sahbelaf Ratre, 3. Yuvraj, Age-09 Yrs, Minor S/o Late Shri Saheblal Ratre, 4. Mannu, Age-07 Yrs, Minor S/o Late Shri Saheblal Ratre Petitioner no.02, 03 & 04 is Mtnor Chiklren being repreaented by the | , petitioner no.OI/Mother in reiation f 5. Adang Ratre, Age-70 Yte, S/o Late Shri Kendra Ratre, 6. Smt.Aghan Bai, Age-65 Yrs, W/o Shri Adang Ratre, All the above are R/o Village-Balsi, j Post Kendudhar, P.S.-&Tahsll- Saraipali, Distt.Mahasamund (C.G.) Versus 1. Abdul Raza. Age-35 Yrs. S/o Late ShrtAbdul Rahman, R/o:-Near Kota Ma$jid, P.S. Amanaka Distt.Raipur (Driver of Matador No.C.G.- 04/G/2788 2. The Commissioner, Munteipal Corporation Raipur, Malvjya Road, Raipur Tahsil-&Distt.Raipur (C.G.) (Writ Petition underArticte 227 ofthe Constitution of India) Mr.J.A.Lohani, counsel for the petitioners. Mr.Anand Kumar Gupta, counsel for respondent No.1. Mr.H.BAgrawal, Sr.Advocate with Mrs.Meera Jaiswat, counsel for respondent No.2. Respondents Mon-appiScants (SB: Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma, J.) ORDER(ORAU (8-8-2011) 1. By this petition under Artide 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the legality and propriety of the order dated ^,.:.^:^;^ ^A '-^ ^^Si^ 1 '^^^' ./ "y ^/ ^^.^^^'[' ^ 21.4.2010 passed by the Motor AccSdent Claims Tribunal, Mahasamund in Execution of Award Proceedlng No.57/2009, whereby the Tribunal has stayed the execution proceeding on the ground that ex-parte award has been passed and respondent No.2 has ohailenged the ex-parte award by filing applicationunder Order 9 Rute 13 read writh Section 151 ofthe Code of Ch/il Procedure in MJ.C.No.10/2010. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the other documents/ordersheets including the order dated 21.4.2010 passed in MJ.C.No.10/2010. 3. During pendency of M.J.C., MiscJudlcial Case for setting aside ex-parte order was filed at the instance of respondent No.2. 4. Any order for staying execution proceeding ought to have been passed in such proceedjng instead of passing any order in execution proceeding. 5. With the aforesaid observation, theorderdated 21.4.2010 is hereby quashed, but with a view to provlde opportunity of hearing for filing the petition and redressing its grievances before the Tribunal, order impugned passed by the Tribunal shall continue for 45 da^ from today. Meanwhile, respondent No.2 is at IJberty to flle appropriate apptteation in MJ.C.No.10/2010 for stay of execution and if such apptication is fited, then the Tribunal shall decide the application on tts own merit without influencing by this order. No order as to costs. r Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge PA r