-:- 1 -:- Misc. Civil Case No.391 of 2010. 10.10.2011 :- Shri Satpal Singh, learned counsel for the applicants. Heard. O R D E R BY filing this Misc. Civil Case, the applicants are seeking restoration of Misc. Appeal No.1767 of 2003 which suffered dismissal on account of non-compliance of peremptory order dated 05.01.2004. [2] The applicants-claimants had filed the aforesaid Misc. Appeal seeking enhancement of the compensation amount awarded in their favour by the Second Member, Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Mhow, District Indore in Claim Case No.81/2002. [3] The applicants claim to be legal representatives of deceased Bhajanlal who died in a motor accident. The Claims Tribunal awarded compensation of Rs.1,87,000-00. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid amount, the aforesaid Misc. Appeal was filed. -:- 2 -:- [4] A Division Bench of this Court admitted the said appeal for final hearing on 05.01.2004 with a further order that notice for admission be issued to the Respondents on payment of P.F. within 7 days by Regd. Post as well as by ordinary course. It was further observed that failure to comply with the aforesaid order would entail dismissal of the appeal without reference to the Court. [5] According to the applicants, in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench, process fee was paid but the stamp tickets were affixed less by Rs.25.00 as against required stamp of Rs.50.00. In the circumstances a note-sheet order was passed on 01.03.2004 by the Registrar dismissing the appeal in view of the aforesaid peremptory order dated 05.01.2004. [6] The applicants have stated that the mistake of their counsel is bona-fide and as such deserves to be condoned. It is further stated that they were not knowing about the nature of the order which was peremptory and in the circumstances there was delay in filing the Misc. Civil Case and, therefore, an application [I.A.No.5816/2010] seeking condonation of -:- 3 -:- delay has also been filed. [7] Having heard learned counsel for the applicants and having considered the reasons stated in the application for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Civil Case, supported by affidavit of the applicant No.1, we are satisfied that there was sufficient reason for not filing the Misc. Civil Case in time. Accordingly we allow the application for condonation of delay in filing the Misc. Civil Case. We also find that the reasons stated in the Misc. Civil Case seeking restoration of the Misc. Appeal to be sufficient for restoring the Misc. Appeal as the cause shown by the applicants appears to be sufficient and bona-fide and as such a case is made out to restore the Misc. Appeal. [8] Accordingly the Misc. Civil Case is allowed. Misc. Appeal No.1767 of 2003 is ordered to be restored to its original number. [ Shantanu Kemkar ] [ Prakash Shrivastava ] JUDGE JUDGE (AKS) -:- 4 -:-