1. Heard on M(C)P No.210/2003 and I.A. No.4649/2014, appellant's application for condoning the delay in filing this appeal, as the same is filed, barred by 416 days.

2. By filing the reply on behalf of the respondent No.6, the averments of the same have been disputed, stating that whatsoever cause has been stated in it, the same could not be treated to be sufficient cause for condoning the alleged delay as per requirement of section 5 of Limitation Act and prayed for dismissal of those M(C)P and I.A.

3. Having heard the counsel, keeping in view the arguments advanced, I have carefully gone through the aforesaid M(C)P and I.A. In earlier M(C)P No.210/2003, it is stated that the impugned ex parte award was passed without serving any notice or copy of the claim petition on the appellant, the registered owner of the offending tractor, accordingly, the same was passed without extending an opportunity of hearing to the appellant. It is further stated that soon after receiving the information of passing such ex parte award under bona fide advice the appellant has approached the tribunal with an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC for setting aside the above-mentioned ex parte award dated 14.9.2001. In pendency of such proceeding under Order 9 rule 13 CPC before the tribunal again on receiving the bona fide advice from the counsel to file Miscellaneous Appeal against such award, by moving an application for withdrawal of such proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 CPC, vide order 1.2.2003 withdraw such proceeding and thereafter, file this appeal along-with first application i.e. M(C)P No.210/2003 under section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the alleged delay in filing the appeal. Subsequently, the appellant has filed second application (I.A. No.4649/2014) for giving elaborate explanations regarding the facts stated in the earlier application for condoning the alleged delay. In second application, it is also stated that the appellant being an illiterate and poor villager, under bona fide advice of the counsel, initially had filed the proceeding under Order 9 rule 13 CPC and latter, on further advice after withdrawing such proceeding, filed this appeal.

4. In reply of the respondent No.6, the averments stated in such applications for condoning the delay have been denied. In addition to it, it is stated that after withdrawal of the application of Order 9 rule 13 of CPC, the appellant did not have any right to file the appeal. Inter alia, it is stated that whatsoever cause has been stated in the applications, the same could not be treated to be sufficient cause as per requirement of section 5 of Limitation Act to condone the alleged long delay.

5. Appellant's counsel in his argument, by referring the order dated 1.2.2003 passed by the Tribunal in the proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 of CPC being Case No.43/1998 (Claim), said that according to such order, the appellant was permitted to withdraw the proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 of CPC by extending the liberty to file the appeal and under such liberty, this appeal has been filed and in such circumstance, there are sufficient cause to condone the alleged delay and prayed to allow the applications. He also placed his reliance on a reported case of the apex Court.

6. The aforesaid prayer of the appellant's counsel is opposed by the counsel of respondent No.6, saying that after withdrawal of the proceedings of Order 9 rule 13 of CPC, the ground taken in such proceedings, could not be raised by the appellant again in the present appeal and in addition, he said that date of passing the ex parte award was very-well in the knowledge of the appellant from the date of filing the aforesaid proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 CPC, thus, the limitation to file the appeal was started from such date. Such limitation could not be counted from 1.2.2003, the date of withdrawing the proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 CPC, because such proceeding of Order 9 rule 13 CPC was also filed before the competent Court and not before t