Authority: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
Order Date: 02/11/2026
Case Overview
- Petitioners: Swami Traders, represented by Director Murlidhar Makhija and operated by Aadhar holder Mukesh Makhija, residing in Bhatapara, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.
- Respondent: Smt. Brihaspati Gada, wife of Manoj Kumar Gada, aged about 30 years, residing in Turma village, Bhatapara, Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.
- The civil revision was filed against the order dated 18 September 2026 of the Additional Charge Labour Judge, Baloda‑Bazar, which had rejected an application filed under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
- Counsel for the petitioner, Senior Advocate Sharmila Singhai (assisted by Advocate Kanchan Kalwani), cited the Full Bench decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Yeshwant Rao v. Sampat (1978 SCC OnLine MP 73), holding that an order of the Commissioner under Section 19(2) of the Workmen's Compensation Act is not revisable under Section 115 of the CPC.
- The petitioner sought permission to withdraw the civil revision while retaining the liberty to pursue any appropriate remedy available under law.
- Respondent’s counsel, Advocate Nishant Bashak, raised no objection to the withdrawal request.
Final Outcome
- The High Court, after considering the submissions, dismissed the civil revision as withdrawn, granting the petitioner liberty to avail any appropriate legal remedy.
- The court directed that a certified copy of the impugned order (Annexure A/1) be returned after retaining a photocopy.
Topics: Civil Procedure, Labour Law