HIGH COURT OF CHHATT Sinaie Bench : Hon'ble Shri Diiio Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. Mjscellaneous Appeai (C.lNo.SSof 2008 •V Suresh Kumar Sahu, S/o Sunaram Sahu,aged about 28 years, R/o Viliage Sel, Tahsil & Police Station Kasdol, Distt.Raipur-{C.G.) (Owner ofthe offending vehicle) versus Res&ondents Non-Applicants Chhotelal, S/o Suritram Sahu, about 22 years, R/o Viilage - Sel, Tahsil & P.S. Kasdo!, DistS. - Raipur. (C.G.) Surendra Kumar Sahu.S/o Nanki Ram, aged aboyt 20 years, R/Q Village - Sel, Tahsri & P.S. Kasdol, Distt. - Raipur (C.G^ ^ (Driver of the offending vehicie) iajaj Alliance Generai Insuranee Company Limited, Branch Qffice : Shiv Mohan Bhavan, Vidhan Sabha Road, Pandari, Raipur(C.G.) (Insurer ofthe offending vehide) Appea! under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act 1988 Present : Shri Vivek Rathore, counsel for the appellant. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 12 day of February, 2008) Heard on I.A.No.2,an application for taking documents on record. I.A.No.2 is allowed. The documents are taken on record. (2) Heard on I.A.No.3, an app!i?ation forcondonatjon of delay of 70 days in fi!ing this appeal. (3) Earlier aiso an appiication for condonation of; delay was fiied, which v.'as withdrawn by learned counse! for'the appelianton 18-01- 2008 on the ground tHat inadvertentiy the application was drafted as if it --.s' \-,. ;. s w'as fiied on behalf of the ciaimant, whereas the appeai was by the owner. During the course of arguments, Shri Vivek Rathore, learnsd counsei appearing for the appellant again' sought permission to withdrawthe appiication for eondonation ofdeiay (I.A.No.3) with iiberty to file a fresh appiication for condonation of delay. (4) Prayer isrejected. ; (5) !t is not in dispute that the appeilant/owner was represented by a counsel before the Motor Accjdents Claims Tribunai. In the appiication (I.A.No.3) itself, the appellant/owner has mentioned that after passing of the impugned av/ard, he approached the counsei after lapse' of considerabie time. However, no expianation has been offered for this deiay. No sufficient cause emerges from the application for condonation of delav. (6) I.A.No.3 is accordingly dismissed. (7) As a result, the miscellaneous appea! also stands dismissed as barred by limitation. sa/-" Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Gopsi r-f 'fe 'x : '' ->t. --•^' •\-. ; ,-^