IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MA No.196 of 2011 1.SUNITA DEVI wife of late Bishundeo Tanti, resident of village-Chandheri, P.S.-Sabour, District-Bhagalpur 2.Soni Kumar D/o Late Bishundeo Tanti 3.Shalini Kumari D/o Late Bishundeo Tanti 4.Vivek Kumar S/o Late Bishundeo Tanti All are children of appellant no.1 and residing at same venue as appellant no.1 with her. ……. ……..Appellants Versus 1.THE UNION OF INDIA through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Koylaghat, Kolkata. ……. …….Respondent ----------- 3. 18.4.2011. Heard Mr. Anupa Nand Jha, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel for the respondent- Union of India through the General Manager, Eastern Railway, Koyalaghat, Kolkata. I.A. No.1887 of 2011 has been filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the appeal. Normally, it is not appropriate to refuse/reject the limitation petition but in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case as well as the order passed by the Railway Claims Tribunal, the court is of the opinion that limitation petition is fit to be rejected. The claim petition was filed by the appellants under section 125 of the Railway Act, 1989, which was allowed in favour of the appellants by order dated 8.1.2008 passed by Railway Claims Tribunal and the respondent was directed to pay to the applicants a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-(four lakhs) only within two months from the date of the order failing which the appellants were entitled to get interest @ 9% per annum from the date of the order till the date of realization. 2 Learned counsel for the appellants submits that it is true that compensation amount has already been received by the appellants but he is not sure regarding the date of receiving of the amount. However, the fact remains that compensation amount has already been received by the appellants. In appeal, the appellants have claimed interest from the date of filing of the claim petition before the Tribunal. Mr. Anil Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Union of India has taken this court to the impugned order particularly last page of the order to show that certified copy of the order was already delivered on 14.1.2008. In the limitation petition nothing has been mentioned as to on which date the appellants received the impugned order nor even specific period has been mentioned indicating the delay in filing the appeal. Only assertion has been made that the appellants received certified copy of the order from her counsel in the month of March, 2010. In absence of any plausible explanation or even specific assertion regarding delay in filing the appeal coupled with the merit of the case, the court is of the opinion that in such a situation the limitation petition cannot be allowed. Accordingly, limitation petition i.e. I.A. No.1887 of 2011 stands rejected. In view of rejection of limitation petition, M.A. No.196 of 2011 automatically stands rejected. Md.S. ( Rakesh Kumar, J.)