IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BIALSPUR, CHHATTISGARH Civil Revision No. 3o /2011 ^_,,. APPUCANT: ON-APPLICANTS ess^se t^^£i^- £J ^The Life Insurance Corporation of India Limited, Through Manager (L & HPF) Divisional Office "Jeevan Prakash" Jeeva Bima Marg, Pandri Raipur (C.G) ^ V_ERSUS l..Amrika Bai, widow of Late Shri Baghel, aged about 42 years Sheetal ,,2. Ku. Sadhna, daughter ofLate Shri Sheetal ^ Baghel, aged about 15 years ^. Ku. Mamta, daughter of Late Shri Sheetal j^ * Baghel, aged about 12 years f'. Mahendra Kumar, son of Late Shri Sheetal ^ Baghel, aged about 9 years ^ ^^ ,.<\ r-^' ^ ...-•'^ v^/:'"'/'^ -» .•"-^ '' f-^ ^' .:y' /I .y ..- o ^y. <?<p'..:® y \ jy.f Respondents no.^through - their natural guardian mother (respondent no.l) Amrika Bai, widow ofLate Shri Sheetal Baghel All are resident of village Jarway, Post Office Surdung, Bhilai-3, District Durg (C.G.) 5,- Smt. Radha Bai, wife of Ganesh Ram Baghel aged about 74 years, r/o village Madiyapar, P.0. Kalangpur, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Durg (C.G.) 6. Chhabeli Bai, wife ofParmanand Joshi, r/o village Rehachi, P.0. Chandan Bihari, Tahsil Gunderdehi, Distric DurgfC.G.) 7. Dharamveer, son ofLate Shee'tal Baghel /' aged aboul 28 years, r/o village Madiyapar, P.0. Kalangpur, Tehsil Gunderdehi, District Durg^C.G.) s k Block Development Officer, Dhamdha, Tehsil Dhamdha, District Durg (C.G.) 9^State of Chhattisgarh, through- The €•<>. ' Collector, District <^L- L E, CIVIL REVISIQN UNDE^ SECTIQN 1J.5 QF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH SECTION 384 OF THE INDIAN SUCCECTION ACT^ 1925 _,__ _._..-.£'!.—_ _-.-—.-—.— —— ~ —— .:^&» ~'<t\ .^"""^* IA sf •f '... '& •fl ^. .•,... -.^':^^ ^ <is?-s'%'"l:s« ws '" <!SSNey-i-«l S t J %^.s^^ 'i HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH.BU-ASPUR SIN6LEBENCH : HON'BLESHRIPRASHMITKUMARMISHRA.J, Civil Revision No. 30 of 2011 APPLICANT The Life Insurance Corporation oflndia Limited. Versus NON^PPLICANTS Amrika Bai and others. Shri V. Vijay Rao. counsel tbr the applteant. Shri Somkanl Verma, counsel for 'the respondent No.1. Shri Jltendra Gupta, counsel for the respondents No. 6,7 and 8. Shri Akhil figrawa\, Panel Lawyer for fte State/responctent No.9. ORALORDER (07W7/2011) Heard on I.A. No. 1 for condonatton <rf delay. (2) This revision is barred by 1784 days. (3) To challenge the impugnedordw dated 29i?ll®D05the,aR|^|cant had earlier preferred Civil Revisimi ^k). 39 of 2006. The said revfeion was dtsmissed as witttdrawn with liberty to fite afresh, if occaston so arises. (4) Leamed counsel would submit that since liberty was reserved, this rwision woukl be within limitation and the applfcation has been filed by way of abundant precautton. (5) Statutoiy remedy of appeate and rewsion, if once exhausted, coukt nrt be agitated again merely by seeking liberty at the Ume of withdrawal. R-inciples underlying Order 23 Rute 1 subfljle 0) of C.P.C. to the effect that the Court may grant Uie plainBff permission to withdraw from such suit or such part of the daim with liberty to institute a fresh suit in respect of the subject-matterofsuchsuBorsuch^rtoftheclaim.c^b^aprtWfir^y^ suit and secondly where the siiit suffeis from any formal defect or ttiere are suffteient grounds for altowing the plaintiff to jnsUtute a fresh »iitfor the subject-matter of a suit or part of a daim. - 2-- (6) In e present cas®the proceeding was a ciwl reviskm to whlc& Oretor 23 Rute 1 of C.P.C. has no apfrfroaUon. In sptteof 8te tiberty tte plairttBf is not entitted to renew tt»ecivil revision onceagain if it is once exhau^ed. Statutory appeals and rewsion canrwt be wBhdrawn as and when applicant desires and to file it afresh as and whwt (tesires untess and until it is demonstrated that the earlier proceedingsuffers from someformsd d^«A. (J) In the op'mfon of this Court, no case for condonation of delay <rf 1784 days is made out. (8) ConsequenUy. the awlreatfon for conctonation of ctelay is dismteed and the civll reviskm is also dismissed. Sd/- ,^-s? Mishra ^.'f?—TF'^'sif^2:7n- ,^^;.?.^w:-m"«casBt.*i.'K::!iS'-"BIK^Ste'K» '»<a: