Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) THE matter comes up on an application no. 9831 dated 28.3.2011, whereby the appellant has implored to condone the delay of 466 days in filing the appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant canvassed that the appellant is a 65 years old illiterate lady and lives in Village Roopangarh, District Ajmer. The counsel for the appellant appearing before the Tribunal assured her that he will send the file to the counsel at High Court for filing appeal. She remained dependent on assurance of the Advocate and did not come to meet the Advocate and waited for reply of her counsel, but the counsel did not file the appeal. Thereafter the appellant came to Jaipur and filed the appeal. The delay in filing the appeal was unintentional and bonafide and thus, the delay deserves to be condoned.
(2.) IT is relevant to record that the learned counsel for the appellant is required to explain each day's delay in filing the appeal. The appellant was a party in the claim petition filed before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. The claim petition was allowed on 18.9.2009 in favour of the claimant respondent and against the appellant and respondent no.2. The appellant has filed the instant appeal after more than 15 months of the expiry of period of limitation. The appellant did not make any effort to ascertain as to what happened to the case when no information was gathered by her for more than 15 months. This clearly shows that the appellant was not at all interested in prosecuting the case. Otherwise too, the negligence of the appellant to such a great limit that she did not bother to find out the status of the appeal for quite a long time cannot be permitted to be encouraged by allowing the application. Learned counsel has utterly failed to assign sufficient cause and give reasonable explanation in filing the appeal after 466 days of the expiry of period of limitation. Hence, on account of there being no sufficient cause and reasonable explanation, I do not find any reason to condone the delay of 466 days and thus, the application U/s. 5 of the Limitation Act deserves to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Consequent upon the dismissal of application under Section 5 of Limitation Act, the appeal as also the stay application, both, do not survive and they also stand dismissed.;