1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR First Appeal No. 292 of 2010 (Smt. Vijaya @ Viju Wd/o Manohar Sawale and others ...VERSUS... Union of India, thru G.M., Central Rly, Mumbai.) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A.V.Bhide, Advocate for the appellant C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. This appeal has been preferred against the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, dated 25/1/2008, whereby it rejected the application for condonation of delay in preferring the claim before it. The main ground by which the delay was sought to be condoned was that after the brief was handed over to the lawyer, the lawyer died and wife of the lawyer did not hand over the papers for quite some time. There was delay of more than 7 years in preferring the claim. The learned Member of the Tribunal has found that no sufficient grounds are made out for condoning the delay and for not preferring the claim. After having gone through the contents of the application, it is clear that the application does not disclose as to when the papers were allegedly handover to the lawyer after the accident. The accident had 2 taken place on 13/6/1998 and it appears from the contents of the application that the applicants were aware that the claim was required to be filed within a year. Since the application does not disclose as to when the papers were handed over to the lawyer, it is difficult to accept the contention that the papers were handed over in the year 1999 and that there was no action on the part of the lawyer. The grounds as mentioned in the application do not prove that there was any sufficient cause for not preferring the claim within time. The Tribunal has rightly considered the contentions raised in the application. I do not find any reason to interfere with the said order of the Tribunal rejecting the application for condonation of delay. The First Appeal is, therefore, dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale