p HfGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENCH Coram : HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRI T.P. SHARMA, J. APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.A.No. 451 of 2004 Seetabai, Widow of Late Kamia Prasad, aged about 22 years, caste - Teli, Resident of village - Beeramtal, Police Station and Tahsil - Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) Versus 1. Vinod Kumar Shrivastava, son of Shri Kailash Narayan Shrivastava, occupation - Truck Driver, aged about 32 years, Resident of Kalapi Road Chauraha, Hameerpur, Distt. Hameerpur (Uttar Pradesh) (DRIVER OF THE VEHICLE) 2. Chandrabhan Goshwani, son of Shri Sitaram Goshwani, aged about 35 years, Resident of l^lpi Road Chauraha, Distt. Hameerpur (Uttar Pradesh) 3. The New india Insurance Company Limited, Branch Office Sajdewa Sadar Road, Gwaiior (Madhya Pradesh) (INSURER OF THE VEHICLE) 4. Pawan Kumar, son of Shri Ramkumar, Resident of Civil Lines, Datiya (Madhya Pradesh) 5.. Santosh Kumar, son of Shri Narmada Prasad, aged about 27 years, R/o. village — Darritola, Distt. Surguja (Chhattisgarh) 6. Ramsanehi, son of Shri Devnath Sahu, aged about 52 years, Caste - Teli, Resident of vittage - Beeramtal, P.S. and Tah. Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (CG) (FATHER OF DECEASED) 7. Etwariya, wlfe of Shri Ramsanehi, aged about 48 years, caste-Teli, Resident of viltage Beeramtat, Police Station and Tahsil - Surajpur, Distt. Surguja (C.G.) (MOTHER OF THE DECEASED) 8. Vijay Bahadur Singh, son of Shri Ghasiram, Vijay Bahadur Singh, son of Shri Ghasiram, caste - Lodhi, aged about 41 years, resident of village - Rameditaros, Distt. Hameerpur (Uttar Pradesh) MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL UNDER SECTiON 173 (2) OF THE MOTOR VEHICLES ACT. 1988 Present: Shri Sushil Dubey, learned counsel for the appellant. ORDER (18th March, 2009) The foltowing order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J.: This matter is listed today for orders on the appeltant's failure to pay process fee in compliance of the order dated 5.04.2005. 2) On 05.04.2005 while admitting the appeal, notices were directed to be issued to the respondents on the appellant's taking necessary steps within a week. As the appeliant did not take any steps in Qompliance of the order dated 05.04.2005, the matter was placed before Additional Registrar (Judicial) for orders on -><-. 03.05.2005. Learned counsel for the appeilant sought three days' time for compliance of the" order dated 05.04.2005. Thereafter, though a period of almost four years has etapsed, the •appellant has not taken any steps in comptiance of the order dated 05.04.2005. 3) In this view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of leamed counsel for the appellant for grant of more time. The prayer of learned counsel forthe appellant, therefore, is rejected. 4) Consequently, the appeal is dismissed for non-compliance ofthe order dated 05.04.2005. 5) Consequently, M.C.P. dismissed. No. 566/2004 also stands Sd/- Chief Justice nimmi Sd/-; . T.P. SSia!»na Judge