^ag^.^ /. -t Si HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmvkh. J. ApDlicant Resoondents M.C.C. No.372^008 ^ The Oriental Insurance Company Ljfnited, BHaspur, Through: Its Divisionai Manager, Biiaspur (C.G^ Versus 1. Smt. Noni Bai, 45 years, W/o Fagnu S^namj, R/o Village Bhinoda, P. S. Sarsanva, Tahsil Bilajgarh, District Raipur(C.G.) 2. Shri Aiok Mishra, 22 years, -$/o Shri Raghnandan Mishra, R/o Kududand, Near Milan Chowk, Bilaspur (C.G.) (Driver) v 3. Shri Rama Shantear, 60 years, S/o Shri Ramdulare Pandey, R/o P.0. Badra, P. S. Pathariya, Disfrict Biiaspur (C.G.) ADplication for restoration of Miscellaneous Appeal No.1352/2004 Present : - Shri Ali Asgar, counsel for the applicant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on this 11th day of November, 2008) Heard on I.A.No.1, v^iich is an application for condonation ofdetey of 304 days in filing M.C.C. (2) Brief facts are that against the sward dated 22-09-2004 passed by the 2nd Additional Motor Accidents Claims Tribuna!, Baloda Bazar in Claim Case No.42/2002, the applicant/insurer preferred Miscellaneous ^peal No.1352/2004. On 13-04-2007, learned counsel for the applicanVinsurer sought time to take suitable steps to bring legal heirs of the deceased/respondent No.3 on record and to pay fresh process fee for issuance of notice by registered post in addition to usual mode of service. i» -y Tumane ~^L - Tim©was granted as prayed for. How©ver,steps were not taken by the applicant/insurer. As late as on 23-11-2007, leamed counsel for the applicanVinsurer again sought two weeks time for the said purpose whteh was finaiiy granted with a direction that if steps were not taken wrthin the stipuSated period, the appeal shall be liable to be dismissed without further reference to the Bench. Since the appiicant/insurer did not take any step within the time granted by the Court, the appeal stooct treated as dismlssed under the peremptory order passed by tMs Court on 15-01-2008. (3) After the said dismtesal datecS 15-01 -2008, the applicanVinsurer has filed this h4.C.C. as Sate as on 06-11-2008. In the abovementioned facts and clrcumstances ofthe case, there is no sufficientcause for condoning the inordinate delay in filing this M.C.C. (4) Accordingiy, t.A.No.1 is dlsmi^ed. Consequently, the M.C.C. also standsdismissed. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge