^ v ..,\ ^, BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR (C.G.l CIVIL REVISION N0. ^ /2006 APPLICANTS NON-APPLICANT Budh Ram, son of Shri Dhan Sai Gond, aged about 65 years, occupation ~ agriculture, Halsaro, wife of Budhram, aged about 45 years, occupation - agriculture, Khirodhan, son of Late Dhaneshwar, aged about 13 years (Minor), through ~ natural guardian (i.e. the Revisioiner No. I) All are resident of village Chindia, P.S. Ramanuj Nagar, Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G,) VERSUS N o n e / CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 P?T-1 ^^ XI-HC-78 3T^ST^TRFlN cT^ITW^TstiHI^ © HTHdl sb^icn 3^T^TPTT^PT, ^Tfl<-14l<o, (^dl^y c.^.«>o. ^z-, ^ 2004 W^\ l45|ch (li^3^T) ^TTW^cT^T^T 19.7.2006 Shri Omprakash Yad^c Ai^aments heard. Order passed as foUo^rs: ORAL ORDBR directbd This revision is passed ui MisceBanec|us M.A.C.C.No.22/2004 decide^ Claims Tribunal [Fast Tra<( (CG)]. A perusal ofthe recor^ awarded ia favour of (M.A.C.C.No.22/2004) and] Rs.39,476/- has been depos appUcaat no.l. Likewise fbced deposit on fhe naaie lakh has been deposited on nmior. It appears fhat after fhe above fixed deposits, applicants for dtebursemenl their personal necessities i< and also for construction supported by aa affidavit. appUcation, dismissed fhe ^rafer^ WRTT'ifte^^^R ^3l1^q'3TI^T /, counsel for fhe appUcaats. agaiast fhe order dated 05.4.2006 Civil Case relatmg to by fhe second Addl. Motor Accident |>k Court, Surajpur, Distt, Sarguja, would show fhat some aaiount was the applicants in claun case by order of fhe tribitCLal a siun of ^ited io. fixed deposit on fhe name of ps.39,476/- has been deposited in ^f appUcant no.2 and a sum of Rs. 1 |fhe naaie of applicaat no.3 who is a [depositing fhe aforcsaid aaiount io. |aa appUcation was filed by fhese lof a sum of Rs. 1 lakh on account of ^•, for constniction of a new house of a well, The appUcatioii was |The tribunal after considermg fhis vide impugaed order holding^A^-^' sslme XI-HC-78 3TI^T^)TR^i4> cTSTT31T^T5hHI<=b 2^ 3FET ^Ml^t^, ^Tfl^41<o, fsKtl^y ^l^^ll ?h+ll<sh ^C 2006 3ll^l M^ch (l|^t^<s«^T) ^cfTW ^ri?cT W^T -L araoiint appUcation to be not bon^- applicaats have filed fhis ci^El Learried counsel forl iiapugned order passed by law. He furfher submits Baak is ia fact fhe amounl interests, fhe required I have considered counsel for fhe applfcaats. So far as the amoiia^ concemed, I may say fhat prayer for mafcmg paymenl has been de{K)sited ia the ii|ite: not be disbursed to aaybod^ So far as fhe amouiitt who arc fafher and mofher should have niade ait for disbursement of the tdbunal fhat siace fhe direction the tribunal appear to be rcasoaable. In fhe result, fhe imi so far as it relates to applic^nt 4-fide. It is against fhis order the revision. the applrcacLts submits fhat fhe tbe tdbunal is not m accordaace wifh 1|hat fhe ainount deposited wifh the ofappUcaats aad ia fheir personal should be disbursed to fhem. ax^uments advaaced by learaed enqi^uy fin^ chl^fd41'l WR^ff ^te^<Rt^!< ^sr^w^r tile deposited on the nacae of minor is [the fcribunal has r^hfly rejected the fi^om his amount also. The amount iditerest offhe minors and fhat should ^else in. the eads ofjustice. [iijt of ofher applicaats are concemed t>f the deceased, for fhis, fhe tdbiiaal into fhe grounds raised by fhem a|aiount and fhe view taken by the award does not contaia aoy such consider this pomt, does not caiinot tUgned order passed by fhe tdbunal no. 1 and 2 is set aside, P.T.O. XI-HC-78 3TI^ST ^)T f^TW cr^T3;T[^T$b^lGh .^-- ^ ^ '^ ^' 3'^T -qi^lcrt^, ^Tfl^^Ko, fsKrtKriy "S& P'o, ^ *11*1<<11 sh+licb ^ 200^ STI^T^RfT (yit^^) T 5^<TTW ^rf?cT ^TT^T '•^'S' The matter is rcmaac enquiry on the poiat ofacl & 2 only. The tribimal, after chi<4Td41^ mrof^fe^ <Ri^« ^s^ww^r back to the tribunal to conduct an rcquirement of the applicaats no. 1 conductmg enquiry, shafl pass necessary orders regardm|g disbursement of the amount of applicants no. 1 & 2 only. TChere shaU be no oiders in relation to disbursement offixed deposjit amount ofappUcant no.3, miaor. The rcvision is aUov^ed in part to fhe extent iadicated above. The records ofM.J.C. be sent back forthwifh. The petition staads fi4ially disposed of. ^ _ —^—^^^ ^ Sd/- _. SunilKumarSinhs judge P.T.O.