^ 1 -; 'l ^- Gopal HIQHCOURTWCHHATTlSOARHATtill.ASPtfft i^.^^.zi^^ SuiateBench : Hon'bleShriC^iRftao^ebDsslmvlih.^ MisceltaneousAD0eaHGANo.1312o»2@@7 ApDellarrts Claimants 1. Y<^eshwart @ 13emieshwari Verres^ Wcto Basant Ku^iar Verma, aged about24years i 2. Ku. Astha ©toLate Basant^^^ K^^ Ver(na,s®edaboytp7^^^u® 3. Ku^^^^ YermatS^|eclabout|OS^aB%, /^?F®llant No.2 ayicl 3 aEe mlnprs; tfirough J^)at jguaNtan mofier Yog^shwari Verma j All R/o viltage BNUoyni P^ I'ohanda.DistrictRatpur^C^ versus Respondenty NohuApbli6ants Lekhranv Veinia,r Sto KhaRiantert;' Verma^ ^^^^^t^ ^c^Tutsi, T^naj-^^ Dlstrict-Raipur ff3(^ The Qri^ntal tniyrguicft CSoBtpaw l.jmltN^ thfouQh: yijvtstensrf Nanager Brancb No-1, Th®JOlrte^^^^^^^^ Company UmtM,]^ ^®acl»l^upw. Tahsil amtOistitetlFRatpurp©) iAppeal underSectiont73ofAheflAotoT\(leaiiiclesAct Present Shri S.C.Verma,couins@lfortheappeUaBts. ShnSudhirAgrawal,CGynselfQrresp6ndecrt$lo2. .OIIDEft onT fPassed on1stday6fAprn,20®B5 Nearelon l.A.No.1 for condonation @f<lelay teWlragttiB^>peal. (2) No ground for condoning the delay fe show¥tetti@apidiGafioR. (^ The mere fact that the appellants felt thafrthe appeal ^wald be ^filed at any time is no ground ^r condoning the dda^. "I"hes|»pl»Batton I.A.No.1 is dismissed. (4) Consequently, the appeat is atso (iismissed as barrorf by Umitation. Sd/- DUip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge -'^ x;/ -fc-.^U. ^:' .^:..^"' ....^