1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Civil ApplicationNo. 8730/2008 (Kusum Harisingh Rajput & another VERSUS Union of India, thr. G.M. Central Railway, Mumbai) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri A.B. Bambal, counsel for the applicant. Shri P.S. Lambat, counsel for the non-applicant. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : MARCH 13, 2009. By this civil application, the applicants seek condonation of delay in filing the appeal against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal on 30.09.2004. It is stated in the application that the deceased, who was 70 years of age at the time of the alleged accident, was running a medical shop and was earning the livelihood for the family. It is further stated in the application that after the death of husband of the applicant no.1, 2 the family was suffering from financial hardship and the appeal could not be filed in the Court due to financial hardship. It is further stated in the application that after taking the financial help from the near relative, the appeal has now been filed. One more reason is mentioned in the civil application for belatedly filing the appeal. It is stated in the civil application that due to the death of the husband of the applicant no.1, the applicant no.1 suffered from frustration and mental tension and also suffered from illness due to the said frustration and mental tension. It is lastly stated in the application that on the advice of the well wishers, the applicants have somehow arranged the finances by taking the hand loan and the appeal has been filed by the applicant no.1 and applicant no.2, who is physically handicapped. The prayer made in the application is 3 strongly opposed by the respondent by filing the reply. It is stated in the reply that both the applicants had duly prosecuted the claim petition before the Tribunal. It is also stated in the reply that the delay of 3 Years 9 Months and 5 Days should not be condoned as sufficient cause has not been shown by the applicants for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the application and the reply filed thereto. The delay in filing the appeal is inordinate. The delay is of 3 Years 9 Months and 5 Days. The cause stated for belatedly filing the appeal is not sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. At the relevant time, when the matter was decided by the Railway Claims Tribunal, there was no question of paying ad valorem stamp duty for filing the first appeal. The reasons stated in 4 paragraph 5 of the civil application are, therefore, not sufficient to condone the delay in filing the appeal. It was canvassed before the Court by the learned counsel for the applicant that though the applicants were not liable to pay the Court fee at the relevant time, they were not able to pay the lawyer's fee also. This submission is also unacceptable as the applicants could have taken the help from the Legal Aid. The reasons stated in paragraph 6 of the civil application is also liable to be rejected as it cannot be said that due to frustration and mental tension, the applicants had not filed the appeal within time. The frustration and mental tension was there even at the time when the claim petition was filed before the Railway Claims Tribunal. The delay is inordinate and the reasons stated for condoning the delay are not sufficient for grant of the prayer made in the civil application. 5 The civil application is, therefore, dismissed. JUDGE APTE