HEGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DjVESION BENCH HON'BLE SHRS RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANT IVi.A.fCl (PR) No.1911 of 2007 ~^^^^%0^^ Kumari Dropati Bai D/o Siyaram Sahu, aged about 16 years, through - natural mother Smt. Sumitra Bai, wife of Siyaram Sahu, resident of vjjiage Salhekapa, Tahsii Kargikala, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. Rajkumar alias Raju Dubey, aged about 35 years, son of N.P. Dubey, resident of Mankdika Ghat Qtr. No.10/203, P.S. Chowk Varanasi, Distt. Banarah U.P. presentiy resided Firangipara Kota, P.S. and Tahsil Kota, Dlstt. Biiaspur (C.G.) fDriver of theTractorNo.UP 12/7519) 2. Sandeep Tomar, aged about 21 years, son of Late Satyaveer Singh Tomar, 2A. Sumit Tor (Tomar) son of iate Satyaveer Singh Tomar, aged about 18 years, Respondents No.2 and 2A are the resident of qtr. No. C-3/146, Janakpuri, New Delhi U.P. (Registered owner of Tractor No. U.P.12^7519) 3. The Oriental insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, 9 Community Centre Mayapuri Phase - 1, through the DMsionai Manager, Oriental Insurance Company Limited, in front of High Court of C.G Bilaspur (C.G.) (insurer of the Tractor No. U.P.12/7519) BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 10:18:24 +0530 0 EVilscelianeous AppeaS Under Section 173 ofthe IVIotor VehlclesAct1988 Present: Shri Sudhir Kashyap, learned counsel for the appeiiant. ORDER (2nd May, 2008) The foilowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the appellant's default in not filing an appropriate appiicatlon for condonatlon of delay in fiilng the appea!. 2. No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was filed aiong with the appeai. !n fact, no such application has been filed tiil date though a period of about one year has eiapsed slnce fiiing of the appeai on 27-06-2007 and inspite of grant of opportunities in that behalf bythe Additional Registrar (Judicia!). 3. in this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counsel for the appeliant for grant of more time for filing an application for condonation of deiay in filing the appeai. Hence, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appeliant in that behaif is rejected. 4. As the appeiiant has faited in showing any cause much !ess sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeai, we are ieft r r with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. \ f 5. The appeai, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge VuVlau^