- -.1 - - 11 $ 7 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + LA.APP. 618/2011 DALBIR SINGH (DECEASED) THIR LRS. .....Appellant Through: Mr.L.B.Rai & Mr.Rajan Bhat, Advocates for applicants. versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Respondents Through: Mr. Sanjay Podar, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Sanjay Kumar Pathak, Mr. Navlin Swain & Mr.Mohitrao Jadhav, Advocates Mr. Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advocate for DDA Mr. A.S.Rao, Section Officer (Legal), from I)MRC CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR 1P111P % 30.11.2011 it- - CM No. 17348/2011 (u/O 22 R 3 nw Sec. 151 CPI For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed as prayed for. Application stands disposed of CM No. 17347/2011 (under Section 5 of Limitation Act) & LA. APP 618/2011 1. Illiteracy of the father of the applicants and of their father being not aware of his right to seek higher compensation in appeal, is the reason put- forth for seeking condonation of delay of more than five years in preferring LA.APP No.618/2011 Page 1 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. Signature Not Verified 'ra the accompanying appeal. To be precise, the delay is of 2100 days. The aspect of speculative litigation has been dealt by me in LA APP No. 617/2011, Salbir singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. ' dismissed as time baiTed today, wherein the delay was also of more than five years. Adopting the reasoning of the order refusing condonation of delay in Satbir Singh (Supra), I find the reason put-forth in the instant application to be hardly convincing for condoning the inordinate delay, as the real reason for this long delay is that the clever claimants like the applicants were waiting to know about the fate of the first round of litigation and it is only after the decision of this court in LA.APP. No. 784/2005 'Jamna Vs. Union of India & Ors. 'rendered on 8th July, 2011, the accompanying appeal has been filed. Justice is dispensed by following duç process of law and it cannot be permitted to be abused by entertaining highly belated claims for enhancement of compensation. Since no sufficient cause is shown for condoning the delay of more than five years in preferring the accompanying appeal, therefore, this 4k application is dismissed with costs. Consequently accompanying appeal is also dismissed as time barred. JUDGE NOVEMBER 30, 2011 rs LA.APP No.618/2011 Page 2