JUDGMENT 1. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted today an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condoning the delay, in the instant case, the award was passed by the Tribunal, on 6th April, 1990, and the appellant preferred appeal against the said award on 3-8-1990. Ordinarily, under Order 41, Rule 3-A, C. P. C. it is the duty of the appellant to submit an application for condonation of delay alongwith the memo of appeal. It was submitted that this rule is mandatory in nature as the words used therein are : "It shall be accompanied by an application supported by an affidavit setting forth the facts on which the appellant relied. I will not like to decide this point where the word 'shall' may be interpreted as 'May' or whether it may be treated as mandatory in nature. 3. The appeal was filed on 3rd August, 1990, and this application has been filed today by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the ground that it was lying in his file. 4. I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the appellant. In the application, it has been mentioned that the period of limitation had expired on 23rd July, 1990, and the decision to file an appeal in this case was taken on the same day but due to further process in the matter in the various wings of administration, the appeal could not be filed before 3rd August, 1990, and no other ground has been shown in the application to convince the court as to why the sanction was not obtained prior to 23rd July, and who is negligent in the discharge of duties. It will not be out of place hereto mention that no sufficient ground has been shown in the application why the appeal could not be filed well in time and even after sanction who sat over the papers for more than 3 months. I will also like to add that the O. I. C. has stated that the facts mentioned in the application are true and correct on the basis of the record and legal advice. I will also like to add that the O. I. C. has stated that the facts mentioned in the application are true and correct on the basis of the record and legal advice. As far as the question of delay is concerned, the question of showing sufficient ground are based on facts and this affidavit cannot be said to an affidavit because the person who has handled the file should have filed the affidavit and the person responsible for the delay should have filed the affidavit. 5. I do not find any merit in the application and the application moved today under section 5 of the Limitation Act, is dismissed. 6. However, I have also examined the case on merits for my satisfaction. Mr. Gupta, submits that on the solitary statement of Manphool Devi, the income has been considered as Rs. 900. We can give the better evidence than a wife and there is no evidence in rebuttal and corroboration is not necessary in every case. I do not find any force in the argument made by Mr. Gupta. He further submits that 25 years multiplier has been considered. 7. I have gone through the judgment and I do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the Tribunal and also do not want to interfere with the judgment and there is no provision in granting 25 years multiplier particularly, when the value of the money has been decreased and the prices are increasing and the longevity of life has been increased. I will not like to accept the cross-objections filed by the respondent with the prayer of higher amount of compensation. 8. In the result, I do not find any force in the appeal and the same is dismissed and also dismiss the cross-objections.Appeal dismissed. *******