HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6217 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Arpit Gupta, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Pradip Kumar Pandey, the learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the State, Ms. Priya Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.2 and Sri Sanjeev Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no.3. 2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the validity of an order dated 06.06.2025, passed by the learned Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sitapur in CMC No.456 of 2024 in MAC No.369 of 2019, whereby the petitioners' application for extension of time for depositing cost of Rs.400/- imposed by the order dated 03.04.2025 has been rejected. 3. By means of the order dated 03.04.2025 the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal had allowed an application (3-B) for setting aside an order dated 02.09.2024 dismissing the claim petition for non- prosecution, subject to payment of cost of Rs.400/- as cost within a week. The petitioner could not deposit the cost within a week and the explanation given by the petitioners' counsel before the learned Tribunal was that the order did not come to his knowledge and therefore the cost could not be deposited within time. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Arpit Gupta Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Sanjeev Singh Ram Singh And Another .....Petitioner(s) State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. And 2 Others .....Respondent(s) mere delay in depositing the cost of Rs.400/- due to want of knowledge of the order imposing cost, is liable to be condoned otherwise the petitioners would suffer an irreparable cost and injury. 5. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have opposed the writ petition but they have not proposed to file any counter affidavit. The learned counsel for the opposite parties have submitted that it was the petitioners' duty to have perused the order sheet to acquire knowledge of the order passed on their application and the plea of lack of knowledge that the petitioners were required to pay cost of Rs.400/- within a week has no force. 6. Although it is correct that a litigant should be vigilant while doing pairavi of his case and the petitioners ought to have inquired about the order passed on the application for setting aside the order dismissing the claim petition on record, the mere delay of a few days, which cannot be said to be inordinate delay in depositing cost of Rs.400/- is liable to be condoned in the interest of justice. 7. Accordingly, the petition is allowed and the petitioners are directed to deposit the cost of Rs.400/- before learned Tribunal within a period of one week from today, upon which the ex-parte order dated 02.09.2024 would stand set aside and the petitioners will be permitted to participate in the proceedings before the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal. November 6, 2025 Ram. A227 No. 6217 of 2025 2 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench