9N THE HIGH CGUKT 0FjUDICAWkE AT £ILA5PUR({ G} i MbCELLANEQU APPEAL Ngya 2004/ C Gugendra Smgh S/o Lafe DaieJawar Smgh 8M Aged abcmrfJIS years, (2} GcMnd Singk 535 $14: Lafe Daie5¥1w3r Singh 835 fA§ec§ aband- 14 years, Represen'ked herehy 'egai Guadian Respandeti Na}, (3} $mt Incih-a Ba; W/a Lafe YAshkaran Ba: Agéd abcmf 75 years, Respondenf Haj aw we — ward Na. 12, Mahasamuné \ cc. aeswhdenk Mai wa aFWiage Sonamagar Faiice S’cafian— Sihava, DisEE— Dhamafari CG VEKSU$ ) MadHawdan VisEwakarma 51b Eamwk L3! msEwakarmg, Agerj Rhea-k — 28 yearsr R/o Viuage Tendukang, Paiice 5fafian~ Pi‘Ei’xarar mset — Mahasamun& ca. C2) Parshaftarn mm Sic, Panchanand PafelAged glmut— 39 years: R/o Wiage 52% Baghhzmra, Paiice Eicaiian— mghbahm, Disee. Mahaszmcm& CG; The New in&i3 Inwrance Company Limhd Madina auiiczing mipurcxj. / § XI—HC-22 i WWW \ ! I fFakhruddh1 §Barve ‘ D.B.: Hdn‘ble 5hri Fakhmddi and Hbn'ble Shri L.C. Bhad . JJ. 1—11’—2004 Sd/- x 1 y ' 1 ,,, L Judge‘ sw- L.c.BHADOO Judge [111%W ‘ “WW. L‘NXY—QR— 15 WA 5%o/oér A m. ., W,“ K. . A; A . - x ‘ M.Ai No. 540/2004 was iisted before the Hon’b}: court on 1.11.2004 and on that date Hon’ble court ordered that two weeks’ time is gantd to ~ remove the default. If the default is not removed within the stipulated time, the. appeal shall be dismissed automatically widtout further reference to the BmclL In: wmpliance of the above order dated 1.11.2004 tha appellant was required to file an application for condonation of delay 'm filing agpeal within two weeks’ mm the date of order Le. on or before 15.11.2004, but counsel "for the appellant has fxle the same on 18.11.2004, which is not within‘the ‘ stipulated poriod as granted by the Hon’ble court. Undgfr ttjese circmnsta‘ncas, in the light of peremptory order dated 1.11.2004 of‘a'le Hon’ble Court the appeal stood dismissed. 4 ‘ Comltsel be informed accordingly. i.7: :Sd/. Section Ot‘flcer(Civil)' 2w» ‘ é ' to; 0 V §, e ‘ P.T.O.