HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BiLASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. ---^/l Appellant Respondents Claimaet Respondents NQn-appUcants M.A.(C.) No.437/2008 The Orientai insurance Company Limited, Branch Jagdalpur, District Bastar(C.G.) Versus 1. Jayant Singh Yadav S/o P.R.Yadav, Aged 28 years, R/o Nayapara, Jagdaipur, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Amit Das S/o Shrinath Das, age 22 years, R/o D.N.K. Colony, Kondagaon, District Bastar (C.G.) 3. Ashok Kumar Pandey, S/o Shyamial Pandey, Age 56 years, R/o Tikarapara, Kanker, District Kanker (C.G.) 4. S.K.Upadhyay S/o P.N.Upadhyay, R/o A.J. 2B-19/102, Bhilai, Durg, District Durg(C.G.) Appeai under Section 173 ofthe Moior Vehides Act, 1988. Present : Shri Sudhir Agrawai, counsel for the appeilant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 1st of Aprii, 2008) Heard on iA.No. 1, an application under Section 5 ofthe Limitation Act, for condonation of delay of 124 days in filing thls appea!. (2) in the appiication, which is duiy supported with an affidavit of Senior Divisional Manager of the Insurer, it is stated as under: "That, papers of above appeal was misptaced in the appellant office with other fiie in the month of September, 2007 and sudden above fi!e, could be recelved on dated 11-02-2008, with the other flle, and immediateiy on the basis of above received fiie, without any deiay, above appeilant prepared this appea! on dated 12-02-2008, to fiie before the Hon'ble C.G. High Court." (3) The impugned award was passed on 13-07-2007. It does not transpire from the appiication as to what steps were taken by the insurer after receiving a copy of the award on 13-07-2(^7 to prefer the appeal. -^-- Tumane The contention that the papers of the appeai were misplaced is without substance because it is contended in the appiication itself that the appeliant prepared the appea! on 12-02-2008. Nothing emerges from the applicatlon to show frorn whose custody the papers of the appea! were misplaced and suddenly emerged cn 11-02-2(x58. (4) ! am of the considered opinion that suffjcient ground for condonation ofdelay in filing this appea! has not been shown. (5) Accordingiy, JA.No.1, an applicatlon for condonation of delay in fiiing this appea! is dismissed. Consequently, the appeai stands dismlssed as barred by iimitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^