1 ‘ w A m” IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATERE AT BILASPUR ( C.G. ) w.P. No. Z’I‘éciiv r0 2004. pETITmNERS GEmLAL S/o JAGNU DESHMUKH, Aged about 22 years, R/g Janjgiril PoS.PU.1gaon, Burg (C.G.). 2. GBUKARAN $/o JAGDISH SAHU, Aged about 40 years, R/o village Janjgiri, Dist. Durg (C.G.). VERSUS RESpomENTS 1. SMT.LAXMI DEDSENA w/o Late‘ 1 TARUN LAL DEDSENA, Aged about 4O years. 2. MUKESH KUMAR S/o Late TARUN— LAL DEDSENA, Aged about 20 _ l years. 3. DHANANJAY s/o Late TARUN IAL- DEDSENA, Aged about 18 years. All residents of village— Semra P . O.Silav'ot i, Tehsil and Dist. Dhamtari 4 . I nsuranqe Compa ny . PETITION BINDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CON3TITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE CERTIORARI/DRECTION/ D IRECTIONS} , ORDER/ORDERS 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETITIONER : As mentioned in the title clause. contd.2/.. .. . rpm @ XI-HC-ZZ W m m vi W mm WEN ' mamm® . mmitfwm %aqf7cm3?l%¥1 O5, L20$5 8111i Abhijaet Sarkar, counwd for the ps‘ritioner. The petitioner has pmfmrad thiS petition under Amide 22? of 13:16. Constitutiml of India quaStJoning the legaligr, propriety and correctnesss of Theorder dated 16 8.2004 (Axinexure A- 1) passed by learned 9th Additional Accitient Claims Trihunal (Fast. Track Court); Burg whereby Eeamed Tribunal allowed the applicétion filed by the respondents Nor 1 to 3 herem under Order 6 Rule 17 of rile Code of Civil Procedure. for mnenciment i 1. the Claim peti‘iion on the ground that on accounr to typographiced miStakes regiStration numbers of Tractor, Trolley and Motor—cycle vere typed out wrongly, therefore, rhey $110111 be allowed to 601 ect the same. After heemhg The parties, learned tribunal allowed the said application treat‘ihg the same as l have iypogl‘aphical heard lemued mistakes. CO .msel for the peiitioner ’k at”: m4 Z1 $ admission , ., perused the ap )lication filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3 herein for amendment '1 the claim petitiOn 311d also the impugned order. r said application it has been specitieally mentioned that the numbers of tractor, trolley and motorcycle were tfped out wrm glxf on account of typographical mistakes. Perusalé of the impu ‘ned order reveals that learned tribunal held that the anlendmen , which has been isought for, has been sought on the ground of tVf ographical mistakes. It has been mentioned in the order that so f a In paragraph No.8 of th no evidence has}heen ‘ecorded, ‘~ a XI—HCVZZ procamh'ng has not baan stalt€ controvmsy between thé pafu' C011$0nancs with the provisions in viaw of the. abov€, I do x the impugned order, the potitic diSmissad axld accordinglv, it iS itself. Ski/- LCBHADQO Judge W%.éfa% d and in ordor to dacido tho roal is the amondment sought for i$ ‘11ecsosa1y, Thorofom, tho. ilnptl‘lgned ordoi‘ has boon passod in of Ordor 6 Rule 17 of CPC, 1ot fmd aliy illogalitv or infmitv 111 n of tho potitionor is liablc to b6: CliSmissod at tho admiS$ion Stags