ORDER : 1. This civil miscellaneous appeal was filed by the appellant-applicant Tata Chemicals Limited, Mithapur after a delay of 2534 days. Therefore, to get the delay condoned, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has also been filed. In the said application, it was stated that the Insurance Company has filed S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No.2270/2010 before this Court wherein the impugned award was challenged. The appellant-applicant received the notice of the aforesaid appeal in the year 2010 and its counsel filed Vakalatnama on 29.11.2010. After inspection of the file, the counsel for the appellant-applicant came to know that vide order dated 06.10.2010, the Insurance Company was directed to deposit the entire amount of award and the same was deposited on 19.10.2010. It was also directed by the Court to disburse 25% of the award amount i.e. Rs.42,47,879/- to the claimant-respondent. The liability imposed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur (hereinafter referred to as ‘the tribunal’) was joint and several and the entire amount of award was already deposited by the Insurance Company. In spite of this, the claimants filed an execution petition before the tribunal against the appellant-applicant. Since the award amount was already deposited, no execution application was maintainable and the tribunal was also not competent to order the recovery of the amount from the appellant-applicant. As the award amount was already deposited in the court, the appellant-applicant did not prefer any appeal. Since, the liability has been imposed by the executing court on the appellant-applicant, now the appellant-applicant has been compelled to prefer this appeal. Though there has been a delay in preferring this appeal, there is no negligence or inaction on its part. Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, the delay in filing the appeal may be condoned and the appeal may be decided on merits of the case along with the connected appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimants. 2. Reply to the said application was filed by the claimants wherein it was stated that the appellant-applicant has concealed material facts with regard to the earlier litigation. The executing court passed an order on 02.12.2016 in execution petition No.45/2016 and directed the HDFC Bank of the appellant-applicant to remit the amount of Rs.1,76,23,859.40/- and consequently, a letter was issued by the tribunal on 16.12.2016. The executing court passed an order on 02.12.2016 in execution petition No.45/2016 and directed the HDFC Bank of the appellant-applicant to remit the amount of Rs.1,76,23,859.40/- and consequently, a letter was issued by the tribunal on 16.12.2016. Against the order dated 02.12.2016, the appellant-applicant filed S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.549/2017 before this Court in which this court on 16.01.2017 passed an order of stay of recovery on the condition that the appellant-applicant would deposit 50% of the award amount within a period of two weeks. The appellant did not comply with the said order and the same was challenged by the appellant-applicant before Division Bench of this Court and the appeal filed by the appellant-applicant came to be registered as DBSPA No.83/2017. The said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 22.08.2017 and later on, the SBCWP No.549/2017 was also dismissed vider order dated 14.09.2017. The appellant-applicant deliberately concealed all the facts in the application for condonation of the delay and therefore, the same is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone. It was also stated in the application that the appeal is hopelessly time barred and delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained and therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 3. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant-applicant that the award dated 06.07.2010 was passed ex-parte against the appellant-applicant. The entire amount of award was admittedly deposited by New Indian Assurance Company. The liability imposed by the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Sawai Madhopur was joint and several against all the non-claimants and the entire amount of award had already been deposited by the New India Assurance Company and compliance had already been made. In view of the said reason, the appellant-applicant did not file any appeal before the Hon’ble Court. It is also submitted that when the entire amount of award had been deposited by New India Assurance Company and claimants-respondents received 25% of the award amount and therefore, no question regarding recovery of the amount from the appellant-applicant arises. It is also submitted that no execution petition can be filed against the appellant-applicant when the entire award amount was already deposited. It is also submitted that no execution petition can be filed against the appellant-applicant when the entire award amount was already deposited. It is also submitted that since other appeals against the very same award are pending before the Court, the appeal filed by the appellant-applicant should be decided along with the other appeals pending with this Court. In considering the delay, a pragmatic view should be taken after considering merit of the appeal. It is also submitted that a comprehensive/package policy was there in this case. Therefore, the liability of payment of compensation for the occupant in the car was solely upon the Insurance Company. 5. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the appellant-applicant has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in (2014) 16 SCC 370 , Government Pre-University College and Anr. Vs. Jambu Kumar Mutha, S. Prakash (Dead) and Ors. Vs. Jambu Kumar Mutha & Ors., Manu/SC/0778/2014, 2015 (2) RCR (Civil 507, Dhiraj Singh Vs. Haryana State, AIR 1987 SC 1802 , United Of India & Anr. Vs. Cynamide India Ltd. and another etc., AIR 1982 SC 18 , Wadhya Mal Vs. Prem Chand, (2013) 1 SCC 731 , National Insurance Company Limited Vs. Balakrishanan & Anr. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the claimants has submitted that since the material facts have been concealed by the appellant-applicant, the application for condonation of delay should be dismissed on this count alone. It is also submitted that indisputably, the appellant-applicant had knowledge of the impugned award since 29.11.2010. But no appeal had been filed against the award dated 06.07.2010 and the present appeal was filed in the year 2017. The delay in filing the appeal has not been satisfactorily explained. It is submitted that since the liability of the non-claimants was joint and several, execution petition filed by the claimants against one as the joint tort feasor was maintainable. Claimants can at their own option recover entire damages from any of the non-claimants. Since the present case relates to the composite negligence of both the vehicles, therefore, the present appeal has no force on its merits also. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2015 SC 2261 , Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. 8. Since the present case relates to the composite negligence of both the vehicles, therefore, the present appeal has no force on its merits also. 7. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in AIR 2015 SC 2261 , Khenyei Vs. New India Assurance Company Limited & Ors. 8. I have given thoughtful consideration to above submission and perused the material available on record. 9. Along with the present appeal, two applications, one for condonation of delay and the other for stay of the execution proceeding were filed. The reliefs in both applications of such nature cannot be claimed by any party as a matter of right. On the contrary, the same depends upon the discretion of the court concerned. There is no denying the fact that such a discretion is exercised by the court keeping in view all the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the bonafides of the appellant-applicant. Therefore, to claim such a relief, the appellant-applicant should come to the court with clean hands. It should disclose all the facts related to the controversy, whether the such facts are in its favour or against it. In the present case, the appellant-applicant has suppressed the fact that writ petition with regard to the very same award had been filed by it before this Court which is the subject matter of present appeal. The appellant-applicant was directed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.01.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition Nos.549/2017 to deposit 50% of the award amount but the appellant-applicant did not obey the said order. Instead, it challenged the said order before a Division Bench of this Court without any success. Ultimately, the S.B. Writ Petition No.549/2017 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 14.09.2017. All these facts were suppressed by the appellant-applicant in its application for condonation of delay. This fact alone is a sufficient ground to dismiss the present application. Moreover, there is one more ground to deny the discretionary relief to the appellant-applicant. The appellant-applicant had knowledge in the year 2010 itself about the passing of the impugned award dated 06.07.2010. But, it did not file any application for setting aside the said ex-parte award passed against it. The appellant-applicant also did not prefer any appeal before this court until the execution proceedings were initiated against it. The appellant-applicant had knowledge in the year 2010 itself about the passing of the impugned award dated 06.07.2010. But, it did not file any application for setting aside the said ex-parte award passed against it. The appellant-applicant also did not prefer any appeal before this court until the execution proceedings were initiated against it. Because of this inaction, the appellant-applicant let seven years pass by. Therefore, this is a clear case of negligence and inaction on behalf of appellant-applicant, in addition to its malafide conduct of suppressing material facts regarding previous litigation. In view of the above, the appellant-applicant has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay. 10. Although, other appeals filed by the Insurance Company and claimants are pending and this Court is also of the view that all the similar appeals should be decided together, as it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Government Pre-University College and Anr. (Supra) and Wadhya Mal (Supra), the facts of the instant case are altogether different and do not bear any similarity with the above noted case. In the present case, apart from the fact that the appellant-applicant has tried to mislead this court, it had knowledge of passing of the impugned judgment since 2010 yet it did not take any action against the said award. The rulings submitted on behalf of the appellant-applicant pertain to the merits of the case, which I am not inclined to go into in view of the reasons abovementioned. 11. In view of the discussions, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is dismissed and consequently, the appeal and stay application are dismissed.