Civil Revision No.3854 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Revision No.3854 of 2010 Date of Decision: 19.7.2010 United India Insurance Company Limited …Petitioner Versus Narinder Pal Singh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) The respondent was awarded compensation by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal,Jalandhar. Aggrieved against the same, the petitioner-company had filed an appeal in this Court viz. F.A.O. No. 1923 of 2008. Vide order dated 5.2.2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court directed the petitioner-company to deposit the remaining amount of compensation along with the interest. The said order was assailed by the petitioner before the Hon'ble Apex Court by fling a Special Leave Petition (C) No. 9357 of 2009. The Hon'ble Apex Court, vide order dated 11.2.2010 (Annexure P1) directed the petitioner-company to deposit a sum of Rs.10,00,000/- in the Registry of this Court, within a period of two weeks, commencing from the date of order. The petitioner failed to comply with the order (Annexure P1), passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court, within a stipulated period. Thereafter, the petitioner filed Civil Revision No.3854 of 2010 2 Civil Misc. No. 7517-CII of 2010 in this Court. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P3), declined the prayer with an observation that the petitioner-company should approach the Hon'ble Apex Court for extension of time,however, the petitioner failed to do so. In the instant revision petition, a prayer has been made that the direction given by the Executing Court that the amount be deposited, should be quashed. The filing of the present revision petition is not only misplaced but without any application of mind too. Once the Hon'ble Apex Court had stipulated the time during which the amount is to be deposited, having failed to do so, the petitioner approached this Court and its prayer for extension of time was declined by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, vide order dated 26.3.2010 (Annexure P3), subsequent petition cannot be entertained by this Court. The petitioner has not only been negligent in obtaining the extension of time but has also slept over its rights. In such a litigation, this Court cannot come to the rescue of a non-diligent litigant. Hence, no interference is warranted in the present revision petition and the same is here dismissed, in limine. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 19, 2010 “DK”