HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DiVISION BENCH CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, CJ. & HON'BLE SHRS SUNSL KUMAR S8NHA, J. APPELLANTS CLAiMANTS Misc. AppeaS (C) (PR) No.1485 of 2007 vHA^ ^l^/^ |»ni»» RESPONDENTS NON-CLAiMANTS 1. Indan Bai W/o Sheikh Apa, Aged about 58 years, 2. Bashiran Bai W/o Late Seikh Nawab, Agedabout 37 years, 3. Mehrunnisha D/o Sheikh Nawab, Agedabout 15years, 4. Shabnam D/o Sheikh Nawab, Aged about 14 years, 5. Sheikh Mohammad S/o Sheikh Nawab, Aged about 17 years, Respondent No. 3 to 5 are minor through their natural guardian Mother Bashiran bai wife of Sheikh Nawab. AEt are residents of Adhari Nawagaon Ward, Dhamtari, Tahsil and District Dhamtari (C.G.) Versus Shiv Mukhi Singh, S/o Sher Bahadur Singh, Aged about 30 years, resident of Road No.18, Quarter No. 5-A, Sector-2, Bhilai Tahsil & District Durg (C.G.) Manager, Durg Roadways Private Ltd., G.E. Road, Durg Tahsii & District Durg(C.G.) Sr. Divisional Manager, The New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Divisional Office, Bhilai Thakkar Bhawan, G.E. Road, BhiJai, TahsJI & District Durg (C.G.) BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 10:18:24 +0530 T: ^tl". ^^- j^,p^^ © IVIemo of Appeal Under Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act. 1988 Present: Shri Y.C. Sharma & Shri Vivek Rathore, learned counsel for the appellants. ORDER (1st May, 2008) The following order of the Court was passed by Rajeev Gupta, CJ. This matter is listed today for orders on the appellants' defaurt in not filing an appropriate application for condonation of delay in filing the appeat. 2. The appeal filed by the appellants/claimants for enhancement of the compensation on 11 -05-2007 is reported to be hopeiessly time-barred by as many as 210 days. 3. No application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal was fiied along with the appeal. in fact, no such application has been filed till date though a period of about one year has elapsed since flling of the appeal and inspite of grant of opportunities by the Additionai Registrar (Judicial) in that behalf. 4. in this view of the matter, we do not find any justiflcation in granting further time to the appellants for filing an application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Hence, the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellants in that behaif is rejected. 5. As the appellants have miserably faited in showing any cause much less sufficient cause for the inordinate delay of 210 days in filing the appeal, we are left with no other option, but to dismiss the appeal as time-barred. 6. The appeal, therefore, is dismissed as time-barred. Sd/- Chief Justice subbu Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge