IN THE HIGH COURT OF 3UDICATURE AT BILASPUR FC.G.] CIVIL REVISION N0. 3-5" OF 2005 [S.B.] CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CQDE. APPLICANTS y Rajeshwar Singh aged 28 years, S/o Tijram Singh. 23 NDN-APPLICANTS:- 1] 2] / /-^A' / / ^t? r,.' Tijram Singh, aged 60 years S/o. Budga Singh. Both are R/o Chandniyapara, Janjgir, P.S. & Tah. Janjgir, Distt. Janjgir-Champa [C.G.J VERSUS Bhauram Suryawanshi aged 55 years S/o Nankuna Suryawanshi. Dilip Kumar Suryawanshi, aged about 28 years, S/o Bhauram Suryawanshi. Both are R/o Gaud, P.S. & Tah. Janjgir, District Janjgir-Champa [C.G.] at present R/o. Mini Basti, Jarhabhatha, Bilaspur [C.G.] XI-HC-22 3^ '<iwi<'i<i, gTfl«'i<a, Ridiyy 3TT^^i'israi FailITO" •c:^"- A5^<>-s>gq' 200 ft^% *ii<4WT'a»*nq> STI^TqiT f^iwsn^fr ShlTWfffer :ffl^T?^IW<ff?cT qiraf?pflT WRft'ft'fec^ (RRZR ^sri^Tra.T^T 2203/2005 ShriH.V.Sharma, counsel fo Heard. The appticants have prefen dated Q8/02CQQ4 passed by First Tribunal, Bilaspur whereby the obji 166 (^ ofthe Motor V^iictes Act Tribunal has been rejected. theapplicants. |d this revlsion againd the impugned order lAddtional Ulotor Vehicles Acddent Claims tction by the applicant raised under Section iegarcfing temtorial jurisdiction of the Ctaims Learned counsel for the under Section 166 of the Nlotor \i showing the place of resictence a; acoident was also within the territi jurisdctional objection was raised under Section 166 (2) of the Motor' an application for amendmentand place of address of Janjgir new add aplplioants submits that initially the app!ication ihictes Act was filed by the non-appiicants Chandaniyapara (Janj'gir). As the place of |irial jurisdiction of Janjgir Claims Tribunai a (ay the applicant by way of filing apF<ication ^ehioles Aot. Subsequently the ctaimants filed jseeking amendment in the cause title and in ^ess ofMini Basti, Jarhabhatawas added. Learned counsel for the address given by the applicants is have decidedthe ofcijection even the prayer was made by the appiii the Tribunal first decided the applif and thereatter the Claims Tribunal under Section 166 (2) of the Motw Tribunals within the territoriat jurisc|( whole district andthere is no indep^i aFbilicants further submits that the subsequent an atterthought. The Qaims Tribunal ou^it to b^ore the application for amendment. However, tantsand instead ofpreceding tothe prayer, ;ation for amendment and allowed the same rejeoted the objection regarding jurisdiction Vehicles Act holcBng that all the Claims (ction ofthe district exeroise jurisdction in the sndent jurisdiction within a particular Tribunal. have heard learned courl ;el for the applicants and also perused the impugned order. '- \. x^3Sc7s^w' XI-HC-22 3^ •<<l''4lcl<<, ^•d1^'ld, fsldl'y^ ^I'^C}! ii*iwrs»)t<rai ^....G,^..AS^ sn^r^r f^iNian^T MWflffig- 3n^r?wrm^f?(T -t. The application for altawed and as the amendment reli in the opinion ofthis Court, the Cla or material irregularity in passingth' underthe revisionaljurisdiction. amendntent preferred by the applicants has been [es bacK to the date of filing the application, i|ns Tribunat has not committed any illegality impugned order which requires interference In view ofthe above, the revi it is dismissed. Consequently, IUI.C.P. No. 3^6/2005 stands disposed of. •*i«rc<<n^^iK^'ir'fe><a <R|^|<.' ^Slf^ITSI^T 3ion is liabte to be dismissed and accordingly Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge