1 CGHC010256172026 2026:CGHC:29551 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 157 of 2026 1 - Manoj Sahu S/o Hiralal Sahu Aged About 37 Years Occupation Vehicle Driver, R/o Jagatpur, Behind The Sagarika Hotel, P.S. Kotwali, Raigarh District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Nausad Ahmad S/o Nisar Ahmad Aged About 34 Years Occupation Vehicle Owner, R/o Dhimarapur, Rambhantha, P.S. City Kotwali, Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Petitioners. Versus 1 - Fagulal Gupta S/o Late Shri Rajaram Gupta Aged About 70 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 2 - Parwati Gupta W/o Fagulal Gupta Aged About 67 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 3 - Mamta Gupta D/o Fagulal Gupta Aged About 43 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 4 - Sanyukta Gupta D/o Fagulal Gupta Aged About 35 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) 5 - Shekhar Gupta S/o Fagulal Gupta Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI Date: 2026.07.15 10:16:10 +0530 2 6 - Vaidahi Gupta W/o Late Shri Rajaram Gupta Aged About 95 Years R/o Ward No. 2, Shankar Nagar, Dhangardipa Raigarh, Tahsil And District Raigarh (C.G.) ... Respondents. (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioners : Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Advocate. For Respondents : - (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 14/07/2026 1. This Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, “CPC”) has been preferred by the applicants (driver and owner) challenging the orders dated 16.01.2026 and 22.04.2026 passed by the learned Sixth Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Raigarh in MACT No. 248/2025. By the order dated 16.01.2026, the learned Tribunal registered the claim case of the respondents/claimants after allowing their application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Subsequently, vide the order dated 22.04.2026, the application filed by the applicants herein under Order 7 Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the CPC was rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that the respondents/claimants are the parents and relatives of the deceased, Ku. Sunita Gupta, who died in a motor accident on 26.01.2022 at around 7:30 PM. The claimants, however, filed the claim case under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (hereinafter, "the Act of 1988") only on 07.11.2025, resulting in a delay of over six months beyond the prescribed period. Thus, the claim petition is barred by limitation as prescribed under Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988 and deserves to be dismissed as barred by law. He further submits that the 3 learned Tribunal erred in allowing the claimants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and should have instead allowed the applicants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC. The orders passed by the learned Tribunal is contrary to the provisions contained in Section 166(3) of the Act of 1988. 3. Heard learned counsel for the applicant and perused the documents placed with the petition. 4. Perused the order-sheets dated 16.01.2026 and 22.04.2026 filed by the petitioners. Under Article 131 of the Limitation Act, 1963, a limitation period of 90 days is prescribed for challenging a revisional order. In the present case, the claimants' application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed by the learned Tribunal on 16.01.2026. However, the instant civil revision was preferred only on 07.07.2026. In such circumstances, the revision petition is barred by limitation. 5. However, the issue as to whether delay in filing the claim applications under Section 166 of the Act 1988 may be condoned or not, is pending consideration before the Hob'ble Supreme Court in various cases 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in ICICI Lombard General Insurance Company Limited v. Ayiti Navaneetha and others (Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 8412–8413/2023 and connected matters) vide order dated 04.11.2025, specifically observed that the Tribunals and the High Courts shall not dismiss claim cases on the ground that such cases are barred by limitation under Section 166(3) of the Act 1988. The Similar issue is also pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bhagirathi Dash v. Union of India and another (Writ Petition (Civil) No. 166/2024). Thus, it is explicit 4 that the subject issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 7. In view of the aforesaid judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and considering the submission of the applicant, instead of keeping the present revision pending, without entering into the merits of the case, the same is disposed of directing the concerned Claims Tribunal to proceed in the claim case bearing MACT No.248/2025 (Fagulal and others Vs. Manoj Sahu and another) in accordance with law, however, no final order shall be passed until the issue of limitation is finally adjudicated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the afore-cited cases or in other similar cases. 8. It is also observed that in the eventuality of any subsequent development or authoritative pronouncement by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in respect of the subject issue, it shall be open to either party to bring the same to the notice of the concerned Tribunal, which shall thereafter proceed to pass appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law and in consonance with such pronouncement. 9. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. 10. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay