^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTSSGARH: BILASPUR SingSe Bench: Hon'ble Shri Diiip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. M.A.CNo.401 of 2006 Appeliants Cialmants Respondents Non-appjicants 1. Smt Amarika Bai, W/o Shyamu Patei, aged about 35 years 2. Shyamu Patet, S/o Chakradhar Pate!, aged about 40 years Al! resident of Vlliage Kodia Shankarpara, Post Kodia, Thana Seepat, Tah. Seepat (Masturi), Distt. Bllaspur (CG) Versus 1. . Satyanarayan Pandey, S/o Vyasnaryan Pandey, R/o ViJJage Bandhav/apara, Post Kodia, P.S. & Tah. Seepat, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2A. Smt Binda Devi, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey, R/o Viilage Khapari, Takhatpur, Tah. Takhatpur, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) 2B. Smt Rajeshwari, D/o Late Ramjwan Pandey, R/o Kishore Nagar, Biiaspur, Tah & Distt. Biiaspur (CG) 2C. Smt. Rama Bai, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey/R/o Shankargarh,Shadoi 2D. Smt Shyam Bai, D/o Late Ramjiwan Pandey, R/o Nayapara, Golbazar, Raipur (CG) 3. The Unsted !ndia Insurance Co. Ltd., Through Dlvisionai Manager, Dlvisionai Office Biiaspur, Tah. & Dlstt. Biiaspur (CG) EVEisceSIaneous appea! ynderSection 173 ofthe Motor Vehide Act Present: Shri A.L Singraui, counsei for the appeiiants. Shri H.B. Agrawai, 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.1942/2006 for condonation of deiay of 126 days in filing the appeai. 2. The sole groynd for the deiay mentioned by the appellant in para 2 of the appiication for condonation ofdelay is as under:- • / :,^:,.^..^^BsiS-riia^»Sy&^" ^ Priya "That, the appeal is filed after 126 days from the stipulated period of fillng of appeai, the same delay has been caused, because the appSIcant is fadng toughest time of his llfe, and he was under in presslon, thatthere is no Eimitfor fiEsng ofas Is before the TribunaE. And when the applicant came intp contact with his counsei he knew about the period limitation, thereafter the applicant requested to his Socal counse!, then only the appeal is fiied." 3. !n my considered opinion, the ground mentioned above does not constitute any vaiid ground for condonation of delay in fiiing the appeal. 4. Accordingly, M.C.P. No.1942/2006 is dismissed. As a consequence, the appeal is also dlsmissed as barred by iimitation. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^