HI6H COURT OF CHHATTISeARH. BILASPUR }: APPELLANT RESPONDENTS M.C.C. No. 100/2007 Sure^i Singh, Aged about 44 years, S/o Hari Singh Thakur, R/o BandhawaparQ, Sarkamda, Tahsil and District Bilospur (C.&.) Versys 1) Vijoy Kumar Sonale, S/o Shri Bharatlal Sonale, R/o Mohalla Torbahar, Near Middle School^ Besides ©urughasidas Mandlr. Tahsil and District Biiaspur (C.^.) 2. The Oriental Insurance Compoiny Limited, Through : Branch Manouger, Opp. High Courl-, Tahsil ond District Bibspur (C.6.) ,; Present: Shri ^autam Khetrapal/counsel for the flpplicant ORAL ORDEft (Passed on 13th March,2007) The following oral order of the Court was poissed by DIIJp Raosaheb Deshmukh. J. Heard on M.(C).P.No.414/2007 for condonatioin of detay h fiJing the M.C.C.No.100/2007. 2. Brief facts are that on S.9.2006 Ihe applicant had filed an appecxl for enhancement of compensation under awcxrd dated 26.05.2006 by the Commissioner, Workmen Compensation, Labour Court, Bilaspur under Section 30 of the Workmen Coinpensation Act. This appeal waui barred by limitdtion, The appslbnt did not flle any application for condonation of deloy in filing the cypeal for m@re •ttiGan ttiree months. Ultimately, th& matter was listed on 22.11.2006 before ?iW^t®!'SB^tel?fc s— J •riie Court. On 22.11.2006, leamed counset for the appdlant prayed for two weeks' time to file an application for condonation of detoy in fiting the cppeal which was also granted white makin9 it Gtear that if the default is not remoyed within the stiputatBd period, the oppeal shatl be liable to be dismissed without furlher reference to 1+ie Bench. The appellant did not file an opplication for condorKition of delay within the time stipubted, due to which in view of the order passed by this Court, the appeal was treated as dlsmissed by the Registror (Judicial) on 27.12.2006. 3. The qpipellant awoke from his slumber on 1.3.2007 and preferred M.C.C.No.lOO/2(X)7 for restoration. An application for condonation of delay was filed along with the application. The only ground mentioned in the application is -rtiat the appellant was not availabie between 22.11.2006 to 25.02.2007 since he had 9on®to Kondagaon with his Family members. It is not shown as to for what purpose, the appellant had gone to Konda9<xon with his family tifiembers for almost three mon't+is- It is aiso pertinent to note 1+iat the application for condonation of deloy also does not provide ony ^ifficient exptanation for the delay, Law comes to -rtie aid of a litigant who is vigilant <xnd not to the indolent, In this case/there is absolutely no ground for condoning deloy in fiBng the M.C.C.No.100/2007. M.C.P.No.414/2007 is accordin9ly dismissed. As a result, M.C.C.No.100/2007 also stands dismissed <xs barred by limitation, I Sd/- 1 Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge Kvr