INJTHE HIGH COURT OP CHHATFlSaARH AT BILASPUR REVIBW PBTmON N0. \^- /2QU (Arising out of order dated 1.12.2010 passed in M»A(C) ^^ N0.83/2QQ6) l^lv^i^^ ^/'^^ ^s^^ BEIWE@ir 0^®d"'" AmanSingh Thakur S/o Ranjit Singh Thakur^ aged aged about 3Q years, VeNde Owner- TractQr NQ. CG 1QA 3678 and Trolley No» CG 1Q A 3679» resident of Village Dhandhan»Tahsil Takhatpur^ Dlstrict Bilaspur (CG^ PETmONER MESPONDBNT ^0,6 ^-M Versus United India tasurance Company Umited^ Rajendra Nagar ChQwk^ Bilaspur (CO). (A^pellant/lnsuranee Co4 2* Smt. Leelabai» Widow of Gaiieshram Patel, aged about 29 years* 3» Master Kapil, son of Ganeshram Patel, aged about lOyears. 4. Ku. Purnima » daughter of Ganeshram Patet, aged about 3years» 5, Ramadhar » sonof Bakhatram Patel, aged about 62 years. 6» Smt» Rambai, wife of Ramadhar, aged about 58 years. ( Sl.No. 3 and 4 mmor^ through natural guardian mother Leelabai, widow o£Ganeshram Patel, and 81. No. 2 to 6 all resident of VUIage Belsari , Post Belsari Takbatpur, present msident of Jarhag^on, Tahsil MungeH, District Bila&pur (CG). ( Respondent no. 1 to 5) Ciatoaafits 7» Melauram» son of Jhadiiram^ aged about 25 years, Vehicle Driver Tractor no. CG IQA/368 and Trolley No. CG IQA/3679, resident of ViUage Jareli, Post Takhatpur, Tahsil and PQlice Station Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). (Driver) RESPONDENTS ^- EIVIEW_PEIlTIQN_yt<IDER OI5©;HE^JilORREVIEWING THE QRDER DATED U2.2QIO RAS^D IM M.A. tC} HQ. a^ ^3/20ft6).BY THE HONBLB DIVISION BENCH 'COMPRISINO'QF HOKLE SHRI JUSTICE I.M. OUDDUSl & HON'BLB SHRI N.K.AGRAWAL JJ. ^ .1 &) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Review Petition No. 12 of2011 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Aman Singh Thakiir Versus United India Insurance Company Limited & others APPLICATION FOR REVffiW OF ORDER DATED 01.12.2010 DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice I.M. Quddusi & Hon'ble Shri Justice N. K. Agarwal. Present : Shri Bharat Rajput, Advocate for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passedon 24.02.2011) 1. Heard on IA No. 1, application for condonation ofdelay in filing the review petrtion. 2. On due consideration, we are satisjfied that the counsel for petitioner is succeeded in explaining the delay caused in filing this review petition. Accordingly IA No. 1 is allowed and delay caused in filing the review petition is hereby condoned. 3. By this petition, the petitioner seeks review of the order dated 01.12.2010, passed by this court in M.A. (C) No. 83/06 (United India Insumnce Company Limited v. Smt. Leela Bai <fe others). 4. This Court has passed the order after pemsing the lower court record and weighing the evidence addiiced in the claims tribunal by the witnesses includmg the claimanfs witnesses. 5. The scope of review is very limited. This court cannot sit as an appellate eourt to review its judgment. The fmdings have been given by this court on the basis ofrecord and the evidenee available on record, therefore, no case is made out for review. 6. There is no ground available for review of the order dated 01.12.2010 under the garb ofthe review petition, the petitioner seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case aj&esh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law. 7. As a result and in view ofthe foregoing, this review application is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sahu Sd/- LM.Quddusi Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge