JUDGMENT :

Ravi R. Tripathi, J.

The Courts are always blamed by everyone whosoever gets an opportunity to do so, for the delay in delivering justice without pointing out the hard reality that, - it is on account of unwilling parties that the major part of the delay takes places'.

This is one such case.

2. First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 was filed by the present applicant, appellant original opponent No. 2 challenging judgment and award dated 07-04-1984 passed by MACT (Main), Surendranagar in MACP No. 148 of 1983. In fact, two MACPs were filed being MACP Nos. 147 and 148 of 1983. In MACP No. 148 of 1983, the Tribunal passed the following order :-

(2) Claim Petition No. 148 of 1983 is partly allowed. The applicant, Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi, is awarded compensation of Rs. 34,100/- (Rs. Thirty Four Thousand One Hundred only) with interest at the rate of six per cent per annum from the date of PAUPER application till realisation with proportionate costs.

Both the opponents shall jointly and severally pay the amount of compensation, as awarded to the applicant, Akbarbhai, and they shall bear their own costs.

Initially the applicant shall be paid Rs. 4,100/- with interest on the entire amount and the costs.

The balance amount of Rs. 30,000/- shall be deposited in the name of the applicant- Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi, in any scheduled nationalised Bank with a direction to the Bank to pay every year Rs. 3,000/- to Akbarbhai Vaghjibhai Kureshi with pro rata interest. The Bank shall not advance any loan on the amount so deposited in the name of the applicant....

3. The First Appeal was filed in the year 1984. Along with that, Civil Application No. 4048 of 1984 was filed for stay.

3.1 On 21-11-1984, the Court passed the following order :-

Rule. Interim stay of the award qua the applicant in the meantime. Mr. Champaneri waives service for the Resp. No. 1.

3.2 Learned Advocate for opponents states that later on, in the month of September 1985, the Court made Rule absolute with no order as to costs, without granting request for disbursement.

4. Learned Advocate for opponents states that he has instructions to state that, - till date, the claimant has not received any amount towards compensation for the accident which took place somewhere in the year 1982,' for which the petition was filed in the year 1982, which was disposed of by judgment and award in the year 1984 against which, First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 along with Civil Application No. 4048 of 1984 was filed, wherein aforesaid orders were passed.

5. It is painful that a person, who suffered accident in the year 1982, is without any compensation till 2010, i.e. for long 28 years.

6. This First Appeal of 1984 was listed before the Court for final hearing in the year of 2007 and the Court passed the following order on 22-08-2007 :-

None for the parties. The appeals and the Cross Objections are dismissed for want of prosecution. Interim relief, if any, is vacated. No costs.

6.1 This order was passed in First Appeal No. 1446 of 1984, with First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984 with Cross Objection Nos. 45 and 46 of 2007. Thereafter, the present Misc. Civil Application is filed seeking restoration of First Appeal No. 1447 of 1984.

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is of the confirmed opinion that, 'granting of this application, which was filed on 24-08-2007, will amount to doing injustice to the claimants.' The Insurance Company did not bother to get the 1984 matter heard in the year 2007, which on account of nobody remaining present was dismissed by the aforesaid order. That is not end of the matter even thereafter, it did not bother to get it restored in 2007 itself, though an application was filed on 24-08-2007 for restoration, may be to contend in case any execution is filed for praying implementation of Award dated 07-04-1984 that proceeding (not First Appeal than Misc. Civil Application) is pending before the High Court. There is no reason set out or no submission is made expla