1 CGHC010342532025 2026:CGHC:38063 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CR No. 209 of 2025 Shri Kumar Bhadoriya S/o Late B.R. Bhadoriya Aged About 72 Years R/o Village Brijraj Nagar Dharampura, District Bastar (C.G.) ... Applicant. Versus 1 - Smt. Sanmati Kashyap W/o Late Sukhlal Kashyap Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Khutaguda Para Sadgud, Thana Parpa, District Bastar (C.G.) 2 - Sudarshan Baghel S/o Sukhdev Baghel Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Aghanpur, Patel Para, Thana Bodghat, District Bastar (C.G.) (Driver) ... Respondent(s). (cause title downloaded from CIS Periphery) For Petitioner : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Sahu, Adv on behalf of Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondents : None. (Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi ) Order on Board 25/08/2026 1. Heard. 2. The grievance of the applicant in the present revision petition is that the applicant had preferred an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, before First Upper Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (CG) (for short ‘the Claims Tribunal’), contending Digitally signed by AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI DN: cn=AJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI, ou=HIGH COURT, o=HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, st=Chhattisgarh, c=IN Date: 2026.08.25 17:07:00 +0530 2 therein that the claim application filed by the respondents/claimants under Section 166 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act 1988’), was barred by limitation in view of the provisions contained in Section 163(3) of the Act 1988, and, therefore, the said claim application was not maintainable. However, the learned Claims Tribunal, vide the impugned order dated 10.07.2025, dismissed the said application filed by the applicant Company and registered the Claim Case No.58/2024. 3. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that even despite the claim case is barred by delay of 1 month and 9 days after the stipulated period of 6 months, the concerned Claims Tribunal has registered the above Claim Case for hearing. 4. 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 3 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 that the subject issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Apex Court. 5. 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 concerned claim case in accordance with law, however, no final order shall 3 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. 6. 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. 7. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this revision petition stands disposed of. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. Sd/- (Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) Judge Ajay