[2025:RJ-JP:21076] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 4991/2024 Gupta Agencies, N.A. Proprietor Babulal Gupta S/o Shri Prahaladrai, R/o Khohra Mohalla, Behidn Arya Kanya School, Alwar, District Alwar (Raj.) (Owner Of Eicher Canter No. Rj-02- Ga-2793). ----Appellant/Non-claimant Versus 1. Smt. Bimla Kaur W/o Shri Harnam Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Village Kolgaon, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bass, District Alwar (Raj.). 2. Satnam Kaur D/o Shri Harnam Singh, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Kolgaon, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bass, District Alwar (Raj.). 3. Satnam Singh S/o Shri Harnam Singh, Aged About 29 Years, R/o Village Kolgaon, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bass, District Alwar (Raj.). ----Claimants/Respondents 4. Hari Singh S/o Sh. Mardana Singh, R/o Manyapura Police Station Mandawar, District Dausa, (Driver Of Eicher Canter No. Rj-02-Ga-2793). 5. The New India Insurance Company Ltd., Alwar Insurer Of Vehicle Eicher Canter (Insurance Company Eicher Canter No. Rj-02-Ga-2793). ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ajay Goyal HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 19/05/2025 1. An application No.2495/2024 has been filed by the applicant- appellant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2308 days in filing the present appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:21076] (2 of 3) [CMA-4991/2024] 2. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that he was not having any knowledge of the impugned judgment as an ex-parte proceedings were ordered by the Claims Tribunal. Though, earlier the appellant was being represented by his counsel before the learned Tribunal. 3. Learned counsel further submits that the appellant came to know about the impugned judgment after receiving the notice of appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of compensation. He further submits that again he received a notice for recovery then he came to know about the impugned judgment which was passed in his absence and without there being any delay thereafter, he has filed this appeal alongwith an application for condonation of delay in filing the same. 4. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellant and also perused the averments mentioned in the application. 5. Counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned judgment has been passed after order of ex-parte proceedings against the appellant for the reasons that earlier he was being represented by his counsel before the learned Claims Tribunal however, thereafter, he did not appear before the learned Tribunal and the impugned judgment was passed. 6. As per the statements made by counsel for the appellant himself that the appellant came to know about the impugned judgment in the year 2022 when he received the notice of an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. However, the appeal has been filed on 22.11.2024. [2025:RJ-JP:21076] (3 of 3) [CMA-4991/2024] 7. No satisfactory explanation has been given in the application as regards the period after 2022 when the appellant has received notice to an appeal filed by the claimants for enhancement of the compensation amount. 8. Since there is no satisfactory reasons given by the appellant for condonation of delay, this Court is not inclined to accept this appeal and to condone an inordinate delay of 2308 days in filing the same. 9. Accordingly, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay is dismissed. 10. Consequently, on dismissal of the application for condonation of delay, the appeal is also stands dismissed being time barred. 11. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar/70