KGH CDURT OF CHHaM'TWGARM AT WLA$PUR W famgle 3ench : Mari’bie 5km Dmg Ramsahem Deghmukm, J. Reviéw Pmitimi N933 @ZQW Miggiicam; : The New lndia Assurance Company ”Qgeiiant Pt. Ltd. thmugh-Divi3iona! Manager} Shahdo! (MR), thmuw w aiv§5mnai Managan Wmginn Cbffim; anwpw (UCM V emug wanww»§mamw : 1 é‘idwm Bmiya La! Gond, aged about 35 Bgsgnndents years. S/o Iate Dukhusingh Gond. ‘ 2. Smt. Senmati, aged about 3O years, W/o Bhaiyalal Gond, Both are Filo Village Jogipur, Tahsil Kota, DistrictuB§laspur (C.G.) 3. Chandrabhan Singh, $/o Bhagwat Smgh, aged about 25 years}, R/o Viliage Samarda, Poiice $tation Rajendragram, Distt. Anuppur (MR), Address N02 — vmage Kata, behind Bu$ Stand, RS. 8: Tahsi‘ Kata, Di5tt, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver Tractor No. MP. 18A.AI2664) 4. 8hivnarayan, Aged About d0 Years, S/O $hr'i Rambihari Vinage, Amgawa, Tahsil PuShprajgarh, Distt. Anuppur (MR) (Owner -- Vehicre Tractor Ne. MP, 18- A.A./2664) Agglicatidn under Order 4'? Rule 1 d‘f C.P.C. read with 5ection 151 of QRC. for review and recall of order dated 18.11.20‘38 gassed in M.A.gC) No. 14% I £008 Present: Shri A.K.Athaley, counsel for the appiicant. W (Passed on this ”is Apr“, 2009) Heard. 2. Paragraph 6 of the application is as undér: “6. That, irradvertentiy the counsei of the applicant faiied to point out his point at the time of hearing. Though it was pieaded specifically in the memo of appeai." wmvrA~W 3. Hen/mg héard {eamed comma! foxr the appiicant, this petition for review of me order dated 18.1 1 20053 has no merit becauae at the time of arguments, learned counsel for the applicant had made omy a two foid x Submissiong; which was considered by the Court. 4. m this View ef {he matter, the petition for review has no subetance. Accordingty,this review petition is dismissed. ““””' ’ _ Sd-/ Dlhp Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge §