1^^-.^ ^^: Respondents Non-appSicants HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Slng!e Bench: Hon'bie Shri Dliip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. !VI.A.CNo.402of2006 ApDeliant : Radhacharan Patei, S/o Rup La! Cjajmant Patel, aged about 25 years, R/o Shankar Para, Vill. & Post Kodia, P.S. Seepat, Tah. Seepat (Masturi), Distt. Biiaspur (CG) Versus 1. Satyanarayan Pandey, S/o Vyasnaryan Pandey, R/o Vii!age Bandhawapara, Post Kodia, P.S. & Tah. Seepat, DistS. Biiaspur (CG) 2A. Smt Binda Devi, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey, R/o Vlllage Khapari, Takhatpur, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Biiaspur (CG) 2B. Smt Rajeshwari, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey, R/o Kishore Nagar, Bilaspur, Tah & Distt. Biiaspur (CG) 2C. Smt. Rama Bai, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey, R/o Shankargarh,ShadoI 2D. Smt Shyam Bai, D/o Late Ramjlwan Pandey, R/o Nayapara, Goibazar, Raipur (CG) 3. The United !ndia Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Divisionai Manager, Divisionai Office Bilaspur, Tah, & DEstt. BiEaspur (CG) JVIiscetianeoys appeal ynder Section 173 OT the Motor VehjcSeAct, 1994 Present: Shri A.L Singraul, counsel for the appellant. Shri H.B. Agrawa!, Senior Advocate with Shri C.K. Sahu, counse! for the respondent No.3. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 26.08.2008) Heard on M.C.P. No.1943/2006 for condonation of deiay of 126 days in filing the appeal. 2. The soie ground for the delay mentioned by the appeiiant in para 2 of the appiication for condonation of deiay is as under:- F^^--^ r~ 1 9-? "That, the appeal is filed after 126 days from the stEpuiated period of fiiing of appeai, the same deiay has been caused, because the appiicant ss facing toughest time of his iife, and he was under in pression, that there is no limit for filing of as is before the Tribunai. And when the appiicant came into contact with his counsel he knew about the periqd Eimitation, thereafter the appiicant requested to his loca! counsei, then on!y the appeal is filed." 3. in my considered opinion, the ground mentloned above does not constitute any va!id ground for condonatlon of delay in flling the appeai. 4. Accordingly, M.C.P. No.1943/2006 is dismlssed. As a consequence, the appea! is also dismissed as barred by iimltation. Prlya Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge