HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BSLASPUR DjVIS[ON_BENCH SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE T.P. SHARMA, J. CLAIMANTS ^.A. No. 296 of 2002 1. Sukhiabai, W/o Late Maharaji Kewant, aged about 35 years, 2. Sundaribai, D/o Late Maharaji Kewant agedabout 18years, 3. Sunderbai, D/o Late Maharaji Kewant aged about 14 years, 4. Sukhuram, S/o Late Maharajl Kewant aged about 11 years. Appeilant no.3 & 4 are minor through legal and natural guardian Sukhiyabai, A!i are resldents of Atmeta, Tahsil Chhuriya, Dlstt. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Versus 1. Devaiu Das, S/o Latkhor Sahu, aged about 35 years, R/o ViIIage Pendrikala, thana Lalbag Rajnandgaon, Tahsit and District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 2. Mohd. Toufique, S/o Mohd. Wahid, R/o Shanti Nagar, Thana/Tahsii and Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The New india Insurance Co. Limited Branch Office Kamthi Line Rajnandgaon Tahsii & Dist. Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Under Section 173 of the E^otor Vehlcles Act J Present: Shri Sun.il Sahu, learned counsel for the appeliants. ORDER (2nd May, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, C.J. This matter is tisted today for orders on the appellants' defaults in not fiiing an appropriate application for condonation of deiay in filing the appea'. 2. The appeai flied by the appeilants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation on 15-03-2002 is reported to be time-barred by as many as 9 days. 3. No appiication for condonation of delay in filing the appeal vvas filed along with the appeal. in fact; no such application has been flled tlll date though a period of more than six years has elapsed since fiiing of the appeal and inspite of grant of opportunlties by the Additional Registrar (Judicial)in that behaif. 4. in thls view of the matter, we do not find any justification in the prayer of tearned counsei for the appeifants for grant of further time for flling an appiication for condonation of delay in filing the appeai. Hence, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appeilants in that behaif is rejected. 5. As the appejlants have miserably failed in showing any cause much less sufficlent cause for the delay in filing the appeal, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appea! as tlme-barred. 6. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Jusdce Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge