THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.444 OF 2009 DATED: 01-02-2011 Between: M/s Padma Rice Mill, Rep.by its Proprietor, Kurnool. .... PETITIONER And S.Ayasha & 7 others. .... RESPONDENTS ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 04.12.2008, in I.A.No.850 of 2008 in O.S.No.245 of 2007 on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Kurnool, wherein the said application filed by the petitioner-Defendant No.5 under Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 C.P.C. to strike out the name of the petitioner–5th defendant from the array of parties, was dismissed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the records. 3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the suit against the petitioner and others seeking compensation for the death of one Shaik Naseruddin, husband of plaintiff No.1 and father of plaintiff Nos.2 to 4. The contention of the petitioner–5th defendant is that his unit is covered by the Employees’ State Insurance Act (for brevity, ‘the Act’) and the death of the deceased had occurred during the course of employment and therefore the petitioner has to approach the Employees’ State Insurance Corporation and in view of the bar contained in Section 53 of the Act, the civil Court has no jurisdiction. 4. According to the plaintiffs–respondents 1 to 4, the death of the deceased occurred due to electric shock and not in the course of employment. As seen from the impugned order, the nature of death of the deceased is a disputed fact inasmuch as according to the petitioner–5th defendant the death had occurred during the course of employment, whereas the plaintiffs contend that it was not so. Admittedly, the provisions of the Act would come into play only in the event of the death occurring in the course of employment, but not otherwise inasmuch as the nature of and circumstances under which the death of the deceased occurred is a disputed fact and that has to be decided only on evidence during the course of the trial. The trail Court has rightly dismissed the application, giving liberty to the petitioner-5th defendant to raise the said contention in the suit. It is needless to state that the petitioner–5th defendant is at liberty to raise all contentions, permissible under law, in the suit, including the plea of want of jurisdiction. The impugned order does not call for any interference by this court. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Interim stay granted on 05-12-2009 shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 01st February, 2011. Tsy/Ksp