v^\ HBGH COURT OF CHHATTjSGARHAT BILASPU^ (^' DIVISEON BENCH RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANT M.A.fC) (PR) No.1914 of 2007 ^^-f^ fc73/^ Krishna Bai, aged about 44 years, wife of Shri Baisakhuram Yadav, resident of viliage Saihekapa, Tahsll Kargikata, Distt. Biiaspur (C.G.) Versus RESPONDENTS 1. Rajkumar alias Raju Dubey, aged about 35 years, son of N.P. Dubey, resldent of Mankdika Ghat Qtr. No. 10/203, P.S. Chowk Varanasi, Distt. Banarah U.P: presently resided Firangjpara Kota, P.S. and TahsiS Kota, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver of theTractorNo.UP 12/7519) 2. Sandeep Tomar, aged about 21 years, son of Late Satyaveer Singh Tomar; 2A. Sumit Tor son of late Satyaveer Singh Tomar, aged about 18 years, Respondents No.2 and 2A are the resident of qtr. No. C-3/146, Janakpuri, New Deihi U.P. (Reaistered owner of Tractor No. U.P.12/7519) 3. The Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, through the Branch Manager, 9 Community Centre Mayapuri Phase - 1, through the DivisionaJ Manager, Orienta! Insurance Company Limited, in front of High Court of C.G. Bilaspur (C.G.) (Insurer of the Tractor No. U. P.12/7519) Mlscellaneous Appeal Under Sectlon 173 ofthe Motor BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 10:18:24 +0530 •^.^ Present: Shri Sudhir Kashyap, iearned counset for the appeltant. ORDER (2nd IViay, 2008) The foitowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is listed today for orders on the appeliant's defauSt in not filing an appropriate application for condonation of deiay in filing the appeai. 2. No appllcation for condonation of deiay in fiiing the appeal was filed aiong with the appeal. in fact, no such appiication has been fiied tlll date though a period of about one year has eiapsed since filing of the appeai on 27-06-2007 and inspite of grant of opportunities in that behalf by the Additional Registrar (Judicial). 3. We, therefore, do not find any justification in the prayer of learned counsel for the appeilant for grant of more time for filing an application for condonation of detay in fiiing the appeal. Hence, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant in that behalf is rejected. 4. As the appeilant has miserably faiied in showing any cause much less sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appea!, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal as time- barred. r y 5. The appeai, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge