ORDER Heard Sri Pravin Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants and Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel, who has appeared on behalf of Respondent/Railway. 2. The present appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claim Tribunal Act, 1987 has been preferred solely for the purpose of claiming interest on the compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim case. 3. Heard learned counsel for the appellants on interlocutory application i.e. I.A. No. 7060 of 2011 which has been filed for condoning delay of 1 year 10 months 22 days in filing the present appeal. The appeal under Section 23(1) of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act, 1987, has been preferred with a prayer to direct for payment of interest on compensation amount from the date of filing of the claim case. 4. It was accepted by learned counsel for the appellants that in terms of the order of the Claim Tribunal i.e. order dated 4/12/2008 passed in Railway Claim Application No. OA9900067, entire compensation amount has already been paid to the claimants/ appellants. In the limitation petition no plausible explanation has been mentioned for condoning delay. However, learned counsel for the appellants has relied on a judgment of the Apex Court reported in (2000) 9 SCC 733 (Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank). He submits that in the said case delay of 1418 days had occurred, even then the Apex Court interfered into the matter. 5. Sri Anil Singh, learned counsel for the Respondent, has opposed the prayer of the appellants. At the very outset he submits that for the first time regarding grant of interest from the date of filing of the claim case the Supreme Court had passed order in 2009 in a case reported in A.I.R. 2009 S.C. 3098 (Thazhathe Purayil Sarabi & Ors. v. Union Of India & Anr.). He submits that in this case alleged accident had occurred in the year 1998 and Claim Tribunal had allowed the claim case in the year 2008 itself. He further submits that the Apex Court in (2000) 9 SCC 733 (Radha Krishna Rai Vs. Allahabad Bank) case was persuaded to interfere in the matter even after expiry of such a long time due to the reason that the Apex Court was satisfied that the appellant was thoroughly misrepresented by his counsel. He submits that in the present limitation petition there is no such ground. 6. Allahabad Bank) case was persuaded to interfere in the matter even after expiry of such a long time due to the reason that the Apex Court was satisfied that the appellant was thoroughly misrepresented by his counsel. He submits that in the present limitation petition there is no such ground. 6. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, the court is of the opinion that the appellants may not get any help from the judgment of the Apex Court on the point of limitation. In the limitation petition no plausible explanation has been given for delay. Moreover, in terms of the order of the Claim Tribunal which was passed long back in the year 2008 entire compensation amount has already been received by the claimants/ appellants. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to condone delay. 7. The limitation petition stands dismissed. Accordingly the appeal too is dismissed. ?