'Q/) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Petitioner Versus W.P. (227) No. 751 of 2009 Ramkinker Singh, S/o Ramkhilawan Singh Parihar, agedabout 31 years, Owner of Motor Cycle MP/CG 10-EA-2492, R/o Padavpara, Mungeli, Police Station 85 Tahsil Mungeli District Bilaspur (CG) Respondents 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Rajendra Kumar S/o Hiralal Kesharwani, aged about 48 years, occupation Grain Merchant, R/o Vivekanand Ward, Mungeli, Police Station and Tahsil Mungeli District Bilaspur (CG) Claimant Mukesh Singh, S/o Mannu Singh Parihar, aged about 28 years, Driver Motor Cycle CG- 10-EA-2492, R/o village Nirjam, Police Station 8s Tahsil Mungeli District Bilaspur (CG) Non-applicant No.2 The New India Assurance Company Limited, Branch Biaspur (CG) Non-applicant No.3 Collector, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Nazul Officer, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) Tahsildar, Jagdalpur, District Bastar (CG) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri Utkarsh Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. O R D ER (Passed on this 6th Day of Februaiy, 2009) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under mistaken belief, the petitioner had preferred a petition, being M.J.C. No. 6/2008 for review ofthe order dated 27th March, 2008 (Annexure P/2), passed by the Second Additional Motor Accident Claims Tribunal (FTC), Mungeli, District Bilaspur. The review petition has been dismissed by order dated 5.12.2008 (Annexure P/l) stating that no grounds are available to review the impugned award dated 27th March, 2008. Be that as it may, the right of the petitioner to prefer an appeal against the impugned award dated 27th March, 2008 is not curtailed. The order dated 5.12.2008,, passed in review may not come in the way of filing an appeal, as in review the consideration is only with respect to the grounds of review, not on merits. 3. In view of the foregoing, this petition stands disposed of. Thakur Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge