B. J. SHETHNA, J. ( 1 ) ). THE Applicant - The Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. has filed this Application for condoning gross delay of 585 days in filing the aforesaid Appeal against the Judgment and Award passed by the learned Tribunal in M. A. C. Case No. 759 of 1997. ( 2 ) ). THE impugned Judgment and Award was passed by the learned Tribunal on 18. 10. 2000. Application for certified copy was made on 20. 10. 2000 and the copy was ready on 23. 10. 2000 and it was delivered on 2. 11. 2000. However, at that time there was a Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court against the Applicant Insurance Company, therefore, they have thought it not fit to challenge the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. But, subsequently Supreme Court reversed the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court and held that the claimant can either file Application u/s. 163-A or Application under Section 166, but they can not avail both the remedy simultaneously. In view of the said Judgment the Applicant - Insurance Company later on decided to challenge the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal by way of above First Appeal, which has been delayed by a period of 585 days. Hence, this Application for condonation of delay is filed. ( 3 ) ). THIS Civil Application is in Office objection, therefore, regular number is not given. Similarly the main First Appeal is also under objection, therefore, regular number of first Appeal is also not given and both these Application and Appeal are given stamp numbers. ( 4 ) ). IN ordinary circumstances we would have granted time to Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for the applicant to remove the office objection, but it would be an exercise in futility, therefore, we have not granted any time and by waiving the objection we prefer to decide this Application on merits after hearing Shri Mehta, learned Counsel for the Applicant. Accordingly, objections are waived and office is directed to give regular number to this Application. ( 5 ) ). Accordingly, objections are waived and office is directed to give regular number to this Application. ( 5 ) ). THE only submission made by Shri mehta for the Applicant - Insurance Company was that once the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in other case is reversed by the Honble Supreme Court then the Insurance Company can always later on challenge the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal, which was based on the Judgment of this Court. He also submitted that after the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court was delivered they approached the Tribunal by way of Application, but the learned Tribunal rejected it in the month of May 2002, therefore, the delay be condoned, He submitted that if the delay is not condoned in challenging the earlier judgment and award passed by the Tribunal then subsequent order passed by the Tribunal rejecting their Application, being not reversible, the applicant would be remediless. Whether the applicant will have any remedy or not? This question is not to be decided in this Application. Whether the gross delay of 585 days in filing the Appeal against the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal can be condoned on the ground that the Honourable Supreme Court subsequently reversed the Judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court or not? This is the only question before us. We are of the clear opinion that this can not be a ground for condoning the delay. On this ground, if such Application for condonation of delay is granted then it would open pandora Box and there will not be any finality to any matter. Number of cases in which the trial Court passed an order on the basis of the Judgment of the High Court, in asence of Judgment of Supreme Court. It is a different matter that subsequently the view taken by the High Court is reversed by the Honble Supreme Court. But in our considered opinion the legality and validity of the order passed by the trial Court can be tested only if it is within time. It cannot be considered on the ground that later on Supreme Court reversed the Judgment of this Court. ( 6 ) ). But in our considered opinion the legality and validity of the order passed by the trial Court can be tested only if it is within time. It cannot be considered on the ground that later on Supreme Court reversed the Judgment of this Court. ( 6 ) ). IN light of what has been stated above we do not see any reason to condone the gross delay of 585 days in challenging the impugned Judgment and Award passed by the Tribunal. ( 7 ) ). IN view of the above discussion this Application fail and is hereby dismissed. ( 8 ) ). ONCE the Application for condonation of delay is dismissed, the main First Appeal (St) No. 3019/02 which is time barred for 585 days is dismissed and accordingly it is dismissed. .