y^ ^^ [^-1. \ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(227.)NO. U^\^ /2010 ^- .^•^" ^ PETITIQNERS: Qew^^^f ^ ^ \°^. 4^1 ^y ^^y .^^ 1) BhukhuDas S/o Shri Banshi Das, Aged about 45 years, 2) Sonkunwar W/o Sri Bhukhu Das Aged about 40 years. 3) Dhan Das S/o Sri Bhukhu Das Aged about 15 years, 4) Kumari Malti D/o Sri Bhukhu Das, aged about 12 years, 5) Son Das S/o Sri Bhukhu Das Aged about 10 years, 6) Chhotu Das S/o Sri Bhukhu Das Aged about 11 years, Fulwanti D/o Sri Bhukhu Das 7) ^ aged about 8 years, ^<&.^or34^^7 oiv-emiv^iyv -Fc^kcv- 6^^1<^A 3^^S * ^ All are resident of Village Koniyapath, Police Station Saragaon, Tahsil Champa, Distt Janjgir-Champa Champa (C.G.) RESPONDENTS VERSUS 1. 2. Kanhaiya Lal Gond S/o Sri Rang Singh Gond, Aged about 38 years, R/o Manas Nagar Korba, Chowki CSEB, Police Station Kotwali, Tah & Distt Korba (C.G.) G.P. Kedia S/o Sri M.P. Kedia, aged about 50 years, R/o Qr.No.A-7, M.P. Housing Board Colony, Balco Police Station Balco, Tah & Distt Korba (C.G.) 3. United India Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office : R.B. Traders First Floor Stadium Road, T.P. Nagar Korba, Tah 8s Distt Korba (C.G.) -:^s.w^^, ^.^%?^, ^^-•^/'-" '^ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRIT IN NATURE OF MANDAMUS CERTIORARY OR ANY OTHER WRIT OF LIKE NATURE ETC. fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASroR &B: HtMi'MeShriPrasfeantKumarMi^ira Writ Petition Q27) No. 4967/2010 PETITIONER8 : Bhukhu Das and Odiers Vwsus RESPONDENTS : Kanhaya Ld GwA and Others ApDearance: Shri A.L. Singroul, couflsel for the petitk>ners. WRIT PETTTK^ UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSmTOTION OF tNDtA ORALORDER (31.08^010) This is claimant's writ petttion under artfele 227 ©ftfae Constitution oflndia challenging dismissal oftii^r applteation by the M.A.C.T., Korba which was preferred uader Chrder 18 Rule 17 of CPC seeking permission to examine eye witness. The appliGation has been rejected by the tribunal after observing that Ae qyliostion does not disclose the name of the eye witaess, who is sought to be examined and the same has not been presented with quite promptitude, because Ihe evidence ofthe claimant has already been closedon 14/09/2009. (2) Leamed counsel for tfae pertitioner would submit that if tiie claimants are not peraaitted to examine eye witness, tfaey shall suffer irreparable loss as in Ifae absence of^sammation ofthe eye wftness, the claim petition itselfmay be dismissed on the ground tiiat the rash and negligent driving has not been proved. ^ 1*<»1^» (3) In view ofthe submissioo made and k@q)ing in view the rights of the claimants, who appear to be women and minors, and that courts sdiould make eveiy endeavor to disp<^e ofihe claim petiti@n on merits and iti order to amve at ajust decision, party should be given complete oiqwrtunity to substantiate Ifceir respective cases, tfais writ petition is disposed of with a direetion to ^ie p^itioners to mov®the tribunal afresh by giving complete particulars about the witness, whose examitiation is neeessaiy snd sueh other partieulars on tiie basis of which he claims that witness should b@ catled for examination. (4) Needless to say tfaat if such an application is made> the claims Iribunal shall dispose it ofin accordance with law. (5) With this obs»rvation,the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge ^pf^