,.^..J'.^.'^ IN THE.HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISQA&H ATBIUSMJR. QmiL BEVISION N0. /^ OF 2Qa3* .^' <s-r-- Aea.ic^NT r> ^ -^- ra:lprak<ish,. 3/Q • Shri Bajnath.,. Aged about 23 years, E/o Village^iadgwi, (KaaTractaiad), Police. Statip'o-K®suai, . • District airgyja, (C«G,)» ^^.>*''^yr^ ^^ ,.^?^-^"" ^ B.U. ^^^•'" HWMAWLmmj$ / Abhash siagh^ Kerketta, S/o Shri shohail Kerketta, R/o VAllage-KusyBi, N»Me@ StatioB Kvauiai > Distrlct Stixg^J a, (C.G.)• Igiaesh Toppo, S/o yiaknowa, Througb i a Afebash SiRgh Kerketta, R/o v.i.lla^e-KysuBi, I^olice Statioia-KusuEBi, Di.striGt Surgyja, (C<G«). The New iDdia ljnsura@ce Oompany, Branch-214 .M<P< Nagar, Bbopal, itrfo^th t The Maaager» ^^^ fiIVZL BEVISK^ SECTI(%i 118 GF THE QQ.I3E OS CIV.tL PROCEOJKE. 190Si» coiitd*»2 =%f-W( ^<^c':-j} - clr'i' ''{^^^: XI-HC-22 3T1^T^T RpTW^n^r st)^I<=b<i(^a <\...^...^' 's fc V. L<f^ w ^ ^ HTHC^Tff)*l|€»i 3^Tt^Nl<rt^, ^Tfl<lll€,i®tcnwy - ^r^5ict» ^-..c.&,.ri^.jd03200 f^^< 3TT^T ^«11W^f^T 28/82/2005 Shri Y.Chafcirvedi, couns^t for the appellant. Ms.lR.Vidya Praveena, c< Heard. The applicant has pr impugned order dated 22/1( by which the applicaUon for name of the applicant has has not deposed as to when business the said money is requ cbl^f<n41Tl HFT^it ^ te^tTf^R^ ^^rlf^'q'^T^ST However, the applicant before the Claims Tribunal PresidJng Officer which shall be Accordingly, the revision mselforr^p.No.S. srred thfe revisfon petition agalnst the S, passed by ttie leamed Clairns Tribunal Irawal of the compensation award in the rejected on the ground that ttie applicant ie is golng to be married ahd for wrtisrt red. In the above circumstanc|es, 1 do nol find any infirmity in the orcter and accordingly the revision petifion is dtsmissed. at liberty t@ make suitabte appticatlon with the particulars desired by the 1 by the Tribunal on its own merfts. ion isdismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge (^^r)