Judgment 1. This letters patent appeal under clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 28.11.2006 recorded in C.W.J.C. No. 11947 of 2005. 2. The respondent-original writ petitioner claimed to be the beneficiary under the Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy of the National Insurance Company Limited on the premise that her deceased husband Shiv Kumar Singh was insured under the said Policy. There is no dispute about this aspect that there was a valid policy issued by the Insurance Company under the scheme of Janata Personal Accident Insurance. After the death of her husband, the original writ petitioner made an application making claim for the insured amount from the Insurance Company as a beneficiary of Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. It came to be rejected solely on the grourd that her claim was belated. No other ground has been mentioned in the impugned order recorded by the Insurance Company. No other plea was also raised before the learned Single Judge, nor there was any such pleading other than the claim being late. 3. The only contention, which came to be advanced in opposition to the claim for insured amount after the death of her husband, was that the claim was filed late. No provision was shown to the learned Single Judge that under what terms and conditions or under what provision, the delay would defeat the claim. Therefore, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition by giving direction to the Insurance Company to make the payment in terms of the said Policy as mere filing of the claim late will not "ipso facto" disentitle the original writ petitioner to claim the insured amount after the death of her husband. Fortunately, this ground is also not agitated in this Letters Patent Appeal. 4. However, a contention is advanced that after the death of the husband of the petitioner, the original writ petitioner was not fulfilling the requisite criteria under the Insurance Policy. In other words, it is sought to be contended that there was no death but there was a murder. This proposition is advanced for the first time in this Letters Patent Appeal. No such plea is there in the pleading and obviously, there would be no place and scope for discussion in the impugned judgment. In other words, it is sought to be contended that there was no death but there was a murder. This proposition is advanced for the first time in this Letters Patent Appeal. No such plea is there in the pleading and obviously, there would be no place and scope for discussion in the impugned judgment. The proposition and the point, which is neither taken and not also mentioned in the impugned order recorded by the Insurance Company nor any such plea ever raised before the learned Single Judge, cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time by the counsel and that too in a case of murder. In fact, the theory of murder is very belated and an afterthought. 5. It is a settled proposition of law that if the grievance, which was available and redressable or raisable in the beginning of the litigation and that too in the writ petition, is not raised presumably and perhaps rightly so because this ground does not exist in the impugned order while rejecting the claim, such grievance and an afterthought plea cannot be permitted to be raised as to thwart the claim of the beneficiary of Janata Personal Accident Insurance Policy. We are very much surprised by the first contention about the Company in delaying and dragging into further litigation for the ground, which is non-existent in the file of the Company and the impugned order of the Company as well as in the writ petition and obviously there would be no scope for discussion in the impugned judgment. 6. Therefore, this Court is left with no option but to raise hands in helplessness and dismiss this appeal at the threshold. 7. Accordingly, this appeal shall stand dismissed.