[2025:RJ-JP:20359] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No. 511/2021 1. Smt. Bhanwari @ Sunita W/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, Aged About 48 Years, R/o Plot No. 54, Ward No. 20, Dhani- Goverdhanpura, Phulera, District Jaipur. 2. Chandra Kantamehra D/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Plot No. 54, Ward No. 20, Dhani- Goverdhanpura, Phulera, District Jaipur. 3. Rahul Mehra S/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, Aged About 22 Years, R/o Plot No. 54, Ward No. 20, Dhani- Goverdhanpura, Phulera, District Jaipur. 4. Shubham Mehra S/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, Aged About 18 Years, R/o Plot No. 54, Ward No. 20, Dhani- Goverdhanpura, Phulera, District Jaipur. 5. Abhishek Mehra S/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, Aged About 16 Years, Minor Through Natural Guardian Mother- Smt. Bhanwari Alias Sunita W/o Late Shri Chitar Mal Mehra, R/o Plot No. 54, Ward No. 20, Dhani- Goverdhanpura, Phulera, District Jaipur. ----Claimants/Appellants Versus 1. Kailash Ram S/o Shri Jeevanram, R/o Harnama, Tehsil - Parbatsar, District Nagaur. 2. Allauddin Khan S/o Jeetu Khan, R/o Begal Nagar, Bikaner. 3. Manager, Shri Ram General Insurance Company Ltd, Address E-8, Epip, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur. ----Non-Claimants/Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Pulkit Raj for Mr. Deepak Chauhan HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GANESH RAM MEENA Order 14/05/2025 1. Matter comes up on an application No.407/2021 filed by the applicants-appellants under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 2708 days occurred in filing the appeal. [2025:RJ-JP:20359] (2 of 4) [CMA-511/2021] 2. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant is an illiterate lady and no any major person is there in her family and therefore, no one could contact the advocate to take advice about further legal procedure for filing appeal. Counsel further submits that the delay in filing the appeal is neither deliberately nor malafide. 3. Considered the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and also perused the averments made in the application for condonation of delay. 4. The appeal has been preferred by the appellants on 24.02.2021 in regard to judgment dated 28.06.2013 passed by the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge No.15, Jaipur Metropolitan-I in Claim Petition No.226/2012 (1094/10) whereby, he allowed the claim petition. However, the claimants have made prayer for enhancement of compensation amount by filing this appeal. 5. The appeal has been filed with a huge delay of 2708 days and in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the reasons for delay in filing the appeal has been stated to be that the appellant No.1 is an illiterate lady and there is no major person in the family who could contact the advocate to take advice regarding further legal proceedings. The averments made in the application are as under:- “The appellant No.1 is illiterate and no any major person in her family. She is a poor person and was too involved in earning bread and better for her family thus no one contacted her advocate, as the family members of the appellant are illiterate and they are not aware about the legal procedure of [2025:RJ-JP:20359] (3 of 4) [CMA-511/2021] filing further appeal and do not have the knowledge regarding limitation. That after the passing of the impugned order the petitioner could not be contacted by the concerned advocate for a long time. But when the appellant contacted to her advocate, she was advised to file further appeal against the judgment dated 28.06.2013, thereafter after managing sufficient funds, the appellant contacted her Advocate who immediately drafted the appeal and filed it without any further delay. That looking to the above facts the delay in filing the appeal is bonafide as the appellant is not aware about the law and legal procedure regarding limitation and further she is illiterate and in such circumstances, the delay ought to be condoned. Otherwise the appellant will suffer huge irreparable loss and injury which would not be compensated in any terms and conditions and the whole object of filing the appeal will be frustrated.” 6. The cause-title of memo of appeal as well as memo of application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal shows that apart from the appellant No.1, the appellant No.2 was major at the time of passing of the award by the learned Claims Tribunal, appellant No.3 has attained majority in the year 2014 and also the appellant No.4 was major in the year 2018. In the application, no details have been mentioned that when the appellants contacted the advocate as regards seeking advice for filing of this appeal. 7. The application for condonation of delay does not contain the convincing reasons for condoning such a huge delay. 8. This Court after considering the submissions made by counsel for the appellants and insufficient reasons mentioned in [2025:RJ-JP:20359] (4 of 4) [CMA-511/2021] the application, is not inclined to condone such a huge delay of 2708 days in filing of this appeal. 9. Accordingly, the application for condonation delay is dismissed. 10. As a result, S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.511/2021 is also dismissed being time barred. 11. Stay application as well as pending application, if any, also stands disposed of. (GANESH RAM MEENA),J Ashish Kumar /44