← Library
High Court Of ChhattisgarhREVP/19/2012dismissed

The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Anup Kumar Agrawal And ORS.

2015-01-28Hon'Ble Shri Justice T. P. Sharma,Hon'Ble Shri Justice Chandra Bhushan Bajpai2 pages

IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH (

ATBHASPUR /V^/^ ..\CREVIEW PETITION N0._/20tl- 'Ac' ^ ._ """'"-_.

-~~-~~~~~-~_ .

rFor M.A.C. 942/2009. for Final Order fD.B.) APPLICANT :- THEORIENTALINSURANCECOMPANY LIMTmD,THROUGHBRANCHMANAGER BRANCH OFFICE KACHAHARI CHOWK, MADINA BUILDING RAIPUR, DISTRICT RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) Vrs.

NON-APPLICANTS:- 1.

ANUP KUMAR AGRAWAL S/0 \t -.1 ^ 1 (^- RAMGOPAL AGRAWAL, AGED ABOUT- ^.-<( »•• 41YEARS, R/0 KHOKHALI, POLICE STATION& &5f'^'- ^S^---">'\^'\T^ TAHSILBHATAPARA,DISTRICT ^e 'S 5 ^ (^rC- RAIPUR(CHHATTISGARH) i'l^T2^ ^ ^''2.

SMTGEETABAIWD/OMOHANWLAL DHRUV, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS 3.

KAILASH S/0 MOHAN LAL DHRUV, AGED ABOUT 17 YEARS 4.

KAMLESH S/0 MOHAN LAL DHRUV, AGED ABOUT 'l 5 YEARS 5.

KU. LATA D/0 MOHAN LAL DHRUV, AGED ABOUT 13 YEARS.

RESPONDENT N0.3 TQSp^RE MINOR THROUGHNATURAL GUADIAN SMT. GEETA BAI W/0 MOHAN LAL DHRUV.

ALL R/0 VILLAGE KHOKHALI, POLICE STATION BHATAPARA GRAMIN, DISTRICT - RAIPUR (CHHATTISGARH) 6.

RAMESH YADU S/0 LAL RAM YADU AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS, R/0 JARAUD, POLICE STATION & TAHSIL BHATAPARA, DISTRICT - RAIPUR ^ DMVER (CHHATTISGARH) REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 CPC 1908

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR

DIVISION BENCH HON'BLE MR.T.P. SHARMA. & HON'BLE MR. C.B. BAJPAI. JJ Review Petition No. 19 of 2012 APPLICANT The Oriental Insurance Company, Raipur

Versus

NON-APPLICANTS 1.

Anup Kumar Agrawal 2.

Smt. GeetaBai i@.^ Kailash ife'l;!. rs&^.w':;?Kaml:els :. ?11:-::: .1, 5.

Ku. Lata 6.

Ramesh Yadu REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE. 1908 Appearance:

Mr. SudhitAgrawal, counsel for the applicant. Mr. Amnto D^^ for respondent No.1.

Mr. K.K.jDewangan, counsel for respondentsl^o.2 to 5. OR DER (28.01.2015) T.P. SHARMA. J 1.

This is petition for review of order dated 27.09.2011 passed in M.A.(C)No.942/2009 by the Division Bench.

2.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 3.

We do not find any ground for review of order dated 27.09.2011.

:^, 1.

Consequently, rpview'petition is liable to be dismissed and is hereby disrpissed. N0 order as to costs.

'l Sd/- T.P.Shanna Judge Sd/- C. B. Bajpai Judge Vijay