M ^^ 0 '^ (^ftcc) HIGH CQURT OF CHHATTSSGARH AT BILASPUR Singie : Hoii?ble Shri Raosaheb Deshniykh,A 'b-' Appeilants Claimarits Respondents Non-apoiicatits |. A. (C.) P.R.No.1871/2008 Shashl Prabha Wd/o Brijesh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 34 years, 2. 'Ku. Nlkhiiesh, D/o Brijesh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 09 years, 3. Ku. Ritesh D/b Brijesh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 07 years, 4. Apurva, S/o Brijesh Kumar Shrivastava, aged about 02 years, 5. ShaiibaSa. W/o Omprakash Shrivastava, aged about 63 years, Appeilants No.2, 3 & 4 are minor through iega! guardian mots'ier Shashi Prabha Shrivastava, Ail permanent R/o Viitage Harra Padav, Keshkai, Post Office Keshkai, District Bastar(C.G.) Present Address: Teilbandha, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Versiis 1, Omprakash Shrivastava S/o Awadhi Bihari Shrivastava, R/o Vlliage Harra Padav, Keshkai, Post Office Keshkal, Tehsii Keshkal, District Bastar (C.G.) 2. Nationai insurance Company Limited Through: Divisional Manager, Divisiona! Office, Nfitional insurance Company Limjted, G, E. Road, Raipur, Dlstrict Raipur(C.G-) Miscelianeoys under Sectiori 173'ofthe Motor Vehicles Act, 1 Present : - Shri Sanjay'Agrawal; counse! for the appeiiants. .ORALORDER (Passed on this 2nd day ofSeptember, The matter is listed today for orders on defaults. (2) Shri Sanjay Agrawa!, learned counsej tbr the. appellants prayed for further time to flie an application for condonation of deSay In fiiing this appeai.As reported by the Registry, the appeai is filed after a delay of 86 days and Is barred by iimitatlon. It has been further reported that the appljcation for condonation of de!ay in fiiing this appeat has not been fited. Registr/ has further reported that the -2-- ^ appellants have not been filed Vakalatnama and valuatlon of appea! has not been mentioned as per Ruie 87 (4) of Chhattisgarh High Court Ruies. Appea! was filed on 17-06-2008. On 29-07-2008, Shri Sanjay Agrawal; learned counsei for the appellants prayed for time to remove the defauits. As prayed, finaily four weeks time was granted to iearned counse! for the appeilants for removing the defaults as pointed out by the Reglstr^ Learned counsel for the appeilants prayed for a week?s time on the ground that despite sending intimation, the appellants have not turned-^fe^ for removing the defauits. Ir? vie^v of the order dated 29-07-2008, no further time can be granted. Since no application for condonation of detay has been filed, the appea! is dismissed as barred by limitation, Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Tumane