The High Court of Chhattisgarh disposed of a review petition filed under S. 114 CPC. The applicant sought review of an order dismissing his writ petition for compensation, noting his brother had previously sued. The court rejected the relief.
Review petition dismissed; no further orders.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
BEFORE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ^, 1SIII
ReviewPetition. N0. ^JA OF2Q14
@1^:
APPLICANT l\4anmohan Thakur, S/o. Jai Nandan P^tlTIONER lakur, Aged Al3out- 38 Years, R/o. Bhaiyathan Road, Post, P.S. & TehsilSurajpur (Wrongly printed as TahsilPrat^>pur in the cause title of impugned or^?r), Revenue & Civil DistrictSurajpur (C.G.). '^i^'"' -s^ ^•""
VERSUS
NON-APPLICANTS
RESPONDENTS
APPLICATION FQft REVIEW U/s 114 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE FOR WRIT PETITION N0.^954/2003 (MANMOHAN THAKUR v/s
S.E.C.L. &others)
sia
..• i,^aeS^a--^f^^B^--:-:"-^.-—.__: ;
~Svc( ^|<4|^<<^ yTti'y<l<5, (^dl«i^< WTOT sw^K^y.. .f^Q... .?.s^/j .. .^ 2 01
|^TT^r^Tf^Tte
wn^i^s-b^icb|SIT^T^3R»( <{c|i^<s<<^t )
^nw^rf^^n^r|<ftMFd41^^i^ciT^ r^i<D <rii<<Jj<
^^mw^r|
|---|---|---|
||SB: Hon'bleShri Manindra
05-09-2014
ShriSurfaraj Khan, coure
Shri Abhishek Smha,
^SECL
c|jejforthepetitioner.
j)unsej for respondents No.
1 to
bhanShriwstevas. J.|
||Shri. Satish
Gupta;
State/respondentNo-4.
Heard.
Thls review petitlon has
reviewoforderdated 24/07^20
av^rd was passed not on 2
remedyofsultwas avalied by
wssdismissal. Therefore,
bar as the brother of the
suit is not maintainable. There
Court
by
fiilng
writ
petiti
employment
Thesubmissions made
are placed on record.itis,
disr
petit
ho^|1
^
|
l
j
Covemment
Advwate
for
the
|>een filed by the petitioner seeklng
on the submission thatthe maln
t/02/1994 but on 10/07/1985 and
he petitioner's brether and the suii
(iissalofthat sultdid notGreateany
|oner accepted the verdlct that the
fore, the petitloner approached thls
)n
daiming
compensation
and
|y leamed counse! for the petitioner
evef, to be seen thatthe petltioner,|
r'-^:~'""• ;/':f" "^S^i 1 ;":^, '"-y:"".^I-HC—78
~5vcf *qi^|(>1<4, ^Tft'M'il^, 'f^dW^l
ITTO^TT ^^i^.fev^.K^^.^^/.^...^ 201
| sn^ixi^ffi (^cii^si^tT) | ||
|---|---|---|
| ^T^f^Tf^TNF WH^I^sb^i^ |
?^nw^f?^^n^r 2- | <^s<4Fci4)-t^i^cfliSr^^<fSi<4i< ^^Rmw^r |
| as already noticed, has fi!ed statlng that his brother has sw in favour of the petltioner, wh Courtwas notentitledtogrant petition except placingon reo required to be passed. Th dismissed. made by Seamedcounsei fort |
jim affjdavitreljnqulshing his rights jch is one of the reason why this Ipetitlon seeking relief for hlmself ^ny rellef, Therefore, Inthisreview kd the statement whlch has been |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to relief in a review petition filed under S. 114 CPC regarding his claim for compensation.
Whether the petitioner is maintainable in this review petition as his brother previously sued and the writ by petitioner was dismissed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Manmohan Thakur
South Eastern Coalfields Ltd.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
