SADHAMATI Vs. SHIVANAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is a delay of 758 days in filing the appeal. It is noticed that the appellants, apart from claiming that they were in a state of penury, there is no indication of any attempts to seek legal aid and further, even on merits, it is noticed that the Tribunal has taken a very strong view of the attempt to lodge a false claim and there is active connivance by a Head Constable of Police, who had joined hands with the driver and owner of a Jeep, to lay the foundation for a false claim.

(2.) THESE findings are sought to be supported with reference to the absence of material on record as well as material that is on record. Hence, there is no warrant to condone the delay notwithstanding the plea of the appellants and hence, the application seeking condonation of delay is rejected. Consequently, the appeal fails and is rejected.