1 Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.08.07 17:52:37 +0530 CGHC010261642026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 236 of 2026 1 - Mahraj Singh Verma S/o Dukhuram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jitendra Verma S/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o of Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Karina Verma D/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 15 Years Minor through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, at Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tehsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhirendra Verma S/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Durga Verma D/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus

1 - Pushpendra Tiwari S/o Chandrika Prasad Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madika, P.S. Amarpur, Distt. Sidhi M.P. At Present R/o Baikuthdham, Mother Teresa Nagar, Near Water Tank, Chhawni Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Bansal Borwells Proprietor Amar Agrawal S/o Badri Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Samta Colony, House No. 151, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Register And Head Office At Oriental House, Post Box No. 7037, A25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 120002, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Parmanand Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, G.E. Road Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondents 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order in Chamber 07/08/2026 1. The above-stated review petition is taken up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. I.A.No.1 has been filed for condonation of delay of 441 days in filing the review petition. 3. It is stated in the application that when the petitioners had knowledge that the interest has been made applicable from the date of enhancement, they rushed to file the instant review petition requesting to grant interest from the date of appeal and thus the review petition is barred by 441 days.

4. Since the review petition has been preferred with a significant delay of 441 days and the petitioners have not provided any sufficient or valid explanation for such a long delay, application for condonation is rejected. 5. Consequently, the review petition also stands rejected in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao

1 Digitally signed by ALLENA ALLENA ANNAJEE ANNAJEE RAO RAO Date: 2026.08.07 17:52:37 +0530 CGHC010261642026 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 236 of 2026 1 - Mahraj Singh Verma S/o Dukhuram Verma Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Jitendra Verma S/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 18 Years R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o of Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 3 - Ku. Karina Verma D/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 15 Years Minor through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, at Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tehsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 4 - Dhirendra Verma S/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 13 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 5 - Ku. Durga Verma D/o Mahraj Verma Aged About 7 Years Minor Through Legal Guardian Father Mahraj Verma, R/o Village Kobiya, P.S. Bemetara, Distt. Durg, Now Distt. Bemetara, Chhattisgarh, At Present R/o Risali Basti, P.S. Nevai, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioners versus

1 - Pushpendra Tiwari S/o Chandrika Prasad Tiwari Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Madika, P.S. Amarpur, Distt. Sidhi M.P. At Present R/o Baikuthdham, Mother Teresa Nagar, Near Water Tank, Chhawni Bhilai, P.S. Chhawni, Tahsil and Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh. 2 - M/s Bansal Borwells Proprietor Amar Agrawal S/o Badri Prasad Agrawal, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Samta Colony, House No. 151, P.S. Saraswati Nagar, Raipur, Distt. Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3 - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. Register And Head Office At Oriental House, Post Box No. 7037, A25/27 Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi 120002, Divisional Manager, Divisional Office Parmanand Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Chowk, G.E. Road Durg, Distt. Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondents 2 (Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Order in Chamber 07/08/2026 1. The above-stated review petition is taken up for consideration in Chamber in view of Rule 90(2) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007. 2. I.A.No.1 has been filed for condonation of delay of 441 days in filing the review petition. 3. It is stated in the application that when the petitioners had knowledge that the interest has been made applicable from the date of enhancement, they rushed to file the instant review petition requesting to grant interest from the date of appeal and thus the review petition is barred by 441 days.

4. Since the review petition has been preferred with a significant delay of 441 days and the petitioners have not provided any sufficient or valid explanation for such a long delay, application for condonation is rejected. 5. Consequently, the review petition also stands rejected in terms of Rule 90(2) of the Rules of 2007. Sd/- (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Rao