JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. 2. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.3.2014 passed by the trial court, whereby the application filed by the petitioners seeking dismissal of the suit has been rejected. 3. The facts in brief may be noticed thus : The respondent-plaintiff Vikram filed a suit seeking compensation for alleged lost of site in his left eye on account of being hit by bullet fired by the respondents. 4. The present application was filed on 2.12.2013 seeking to allege that as the suit has been filed under the provisions of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 ('the Act'), the same is barred by limitation and as the said court was not a Commissioner under the provisions of the Act, the matter cannot proceed. 5. A reply to the application was filed by the plaintiff, inter alia, indicating that the suit has not been filed under the Act and therefore, the application be dismissed. 6. The trial court came to the conclusion that the suit has not been filed under the Act and therefore, the application was without any substance and consequently, dismissed the same. 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the trial court committed gross error in dismissing the application filed by the petitioners, inasmuch as, the alleged injury is alleged to have occurred in a criminal matter, the trial whereof is still pending and allegations pertaining to death of plaintiff's grand father have also been made and therefore, the suit could not have been filed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners. 9. From a bare look at the plaint (Annex.-1), it is revealed that the suit pertained to claim of compensation by the plaintiff on account of his having suffered on account of alleged action of the defendants. For a proceedings under Section 1A of the Act the requirement is that the proceedings can be initiated by family of a person, who has suffered any loss occasioned on account of death of the person. Admittedly, the plaint does not seek any compensation for the death of the grand father, and is confined to compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff himself. 10. Admittedly, the plaint does not seek any compensation for the death of the grand father, and is confined to compensation for the loss suffered by the plaintiff himself. 10. In that view of the matter, the application filed and the present writ petition filed by the petitioner are bereft of any substance and the same appears to be only an attempt on part of the defendants to some how delay the proceedings before the trial court, inasmuch as, the suit was filed in the year 2007 and the same appears to be still pending consideration. 11. Looking to the conduct of the petitioners in filing baseless application and whereafter questioning the order passed on such application before this Court by filing the writ petition, the writ petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 2,000/- which shall be deposited by the petitioners before the Legal Services Authority of this Court within three weeks. The receipt may be filed before the trial court and the trial court shall proceed in the suit after the receipt is filed by the petitioners. In case, such a receipt of deposit within three weeks is not being filed, the trial court shall (under Section 35B CPC) close the defence of the defendants.Petition dismissed. *******