@ :pf/ PETITIONER Non applicant No.1 Malkit Singh Bal, s/o. late' Shri Sampuran Singh Bal (not mentioned at some places before the court below), aged about 52 years, R/ o Punjab National Roadlines, Gandhi Bagh Nagpur (Maharashtra) RESPONDENTS 4: (APPLICANT NO. l) 1.Smt. Arundhati Devi, Widow of Vindeshwari @ Vindeshwar Brahmin,R/o Champa, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) w/o Shankar Prasad Gauraha, aged about 55 years, R/ o Brahminpara Champa, District Janjgir—Chalnpa (C.G.) (APPLICANT NO.3) 3.Shankar Prasad, s/o Kedar Nath Gauraha, R/ o Brahminpara Champa, .ggistrict Janjgir—Champa (C.G.) be (NON-APPLICANTNO.3)4.Nationa1 Insurance ;~"Company Limited, Branch Nagpur (Maharashtra) IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH,BILASPUR (C G I WRIT PETITION N0491/2004 / VERSUS (APPLICANT NO 2) 2. Smt. Kaveribai, / @ (NON-APPLICANT N02) 5.Rajendra Singh, s/o Balbir Singhé’ Bal, aged about 25 years, R/oi c/o.' Bombay M.P. Road Lines, Tatibandh Raipur (C.G.) 5/ WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 aF THE Q ’g CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF WRITlWRITSz ORDERIORDERS, ORIAND DIRECTION l DIRECTIONS IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUSICERTIORARI, OR OF ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE NATURE. w£ Xl-HC-22 23I07/2004 / Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, counsel for the petitioner. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Shn‘ A.K. Gupta, counsc An application (M.W .withdrawal of amount has bee 2 and 3. As per this Court’s order award was stayed subject to d and fulther on furnishing respondents No. 2 and 3 have now moved this application for amount. award reveals that the respondents .e deceased and respondent No.1 is i they have been awarded the counsel for respondents No. 2 &3. l for respondent No.4. P.No.4870/2004) for / permitting n med on behalf of respondents No. TA dated 08/ 03/ 2004, execution of the epositing 50% of the awald amount security for the remainder. The allowing them to withdraw the Perusal of the impugned 'No. 2 and 3 are parents ofth widow of the deceased an compensation in equal share. Learned counsel for the parties submit that against the said award respondent no.1 has rant of more share to her as she is widow of the deceased and respondents No. 2 and 3 are elder persons and the said Miscellan already moved the Miscellaneous Appeal before this Court for g. eous Appeal is still pending decision before this Court. Therefore, the respondents No. 2 and 3 are at liberty to move in that Miscellaneous Appeal for withdrawal of the amount. As far as this writ petition is concpmed, the petitioner has hled this writ petition challenging the. await}. on the ground that ¢ 3mm . wpbal/MgéF m the said award was passed in petitioner. Learned counsel : application under Order 9, R1 has alreadv been moved by Tribunal for setting aside the consideration. He further Sub move this writ petition beca1 execution of the award was rejg Since the stay has alrea as such pmceeding for setting pending, this writ petition is alreadv has alternative remedy and he has already availed the same. Therefore, this writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid observations. continue till the disposal of the granted by this Court will application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. of this order, M.W.P,No. 1554/ 2004 ‘ and I.A.No.4870/ 2004 also stand disposed of. Certined copy as per rules. an ex parte proceeding against the br the petitioner submits that the Lle 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure Hie petin'oner before the concerned ex palte award which is pending mits that the petitioner was forced to ise his application for stay of the :cted by the Tribunal. dy been granted in this matter and aside the ex part6 award is already unnecessary as the petitioner has for setting aside the ex parte award However, stay In View Lv°° bcE“ 3“6%e [w rind