JUDGMENT : Sri.S.Y.Shivalli., learned counsel for appellants and Sri.Byregowda., learned counsel on behalf of Sri.Abhinay.Y.T., for respondent have appeared in person. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their status and ranking before the Tribunal. 3. An application came to be filed under Section 16 of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987 read with Section 124-A of Railways Act, 1989 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) against the respondent Railways for payment of compensation Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four Lakh only) along with 12% interest from the date of application till realization on account of death of one Mohammad Shalam in an untoward incident. It is stated that deceased Mohammad Shalam is the husband of the first applicant and father of the second and third applicants. It is stated that on 09.07.2005, the deceased had gone to attend his personal work as such he boarded a train after purchasing a ticket. Due to jerk and jolt, he fell down from a moving train near Yadlapur Chikkasugur in between KM No.585/0-1 and succumbed to injuries. Contending that it is an untoward incident, the applicants claimed compensation. They also filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay. The Railways filed objection contending that there is a delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in all 2,128 days in filing OA and the applicants have not shown any reasonable cause/reasons to condone the delay as per Section 17(1)(b) of the Railways Claims Tribunal Act, 1987. Among other grounds they prayed for the dismissal of the application. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently, the application was also rejected vide order dated 20.09.2013. It is this order which is challenged in this Appeal on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Appeal. 4. Learned counsel for appellants submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is not proper either in law or on facts and evidence in the case. Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the IA bearing No.202/2012 without appreciating the real facts and circumstances of the case. A further submission is made that the Tribunal committed a serious error in disbelieving the medical certificates. Next, he submitted that the Tribunal has grossly erred in dismissing the IA bearing No.202/2012 without appreciating the real facts and circumstances of the case. A further submission is made that the Tribunal committed a serious error in disbelieving the medical certificates. It is also submitted that the applicants have assigned proper, cogent and genuine reasons in support of their contention regarding condonation of delay, which the Tribunal failed to appreciate. Learned counsel vehemently contended that the Tribunal has failed to exercise the power vested in it to ascertain, the geniuses of the medical certificates. Lastly, he submitted that viewed from any angle, the order of the Tribunal is unsustainable and accordingly he submitted that the appeal may be allowed. 5. Sri.Byregowda., learned counsel for the Railways justified the order of the Tribunal. Next, he submitted that there is an inordinate delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days in filing a claim application. A further submission is made that the applicants have not shown sufficient cause to condone the delay. Lastly, he submitted that the Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record and rejected the application for condonation of delay and also rejected the claim. The appellants have not made out any good grounds to interfere with the order. Accordingly, he prayed for the dismissal of the appeal. 6. Heard the contentions urged on behalf of respective parties and perused the appeal papers and record with care. 7. In the backdrop of the specific contentions with regard to condonation of delay, what is required to be considered and answered is whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause to condone the delay? To answer this, I propose to refer to the law relating to limitation. Statutes of limitation are designed to effectuate a beneficent public purpose viz., to prevent the taking away from one what he has for long been permitted to consider his own and on the faith of which he plans his life, habits and expenses. Law of Limitation is an Act of peace. The law of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the quiet of the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. The law of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure the quiet of the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. The object of the rules of limitation is prevention and not curative. They interpose a statutory bar after a certain period and give a quietus to suits to enforce an existing right. Lapse of limitation ordinarily bars only the remedy and does not extinguish the title of the claimant. It is needless to say that the rules of limitation are founded on consideration of public policy and the provision of the Limitation Act dealing with the limitation are required to be interpreted with the approach which advances the cause of public policy and not otherwise. The object of limitation laws is to compel a litigant to be diligent in seeking remedies in a court of law and put bar on stale claims. The interest of society requires that the party should be put to litigation keeping in view of its nature. The law assists the vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Bearing these principles in mind, let me see whether the applicants are vigilant and diligent. Suffice it to note that the alleged untoward incident occurred on 09.07.2005. The applicants claiming to be the dependents of the deceased filed claim application along with an application under Section 17(1)(b) of the Railways Claims Tribunals Act, 1987. I have perused the claim application and the delay application with utmost care. To be more precise, the claim application and the delay application are filed on 27.04.2011. The condonation of delay application is numbered as IA No.100 of 2011. It is significant to note that the applicants withdrew the said application with a liberty to file a better affidavit enclosing all relevant papers. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2011 permitted the applicants to withdraw the application with a liberty to file a better affidavit along with relevant documents. The case was posted on 21.12.2011 and application for condonation of delay was not filed hence it was ordered to be listed on 08.02.2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2011 permitted the applicants to withdraw the application with a liberty to file a better affidavit along with relevant documents. The case was posted on 21.12.2011 and application for condonation of delay was not filed hence it was ordered to be listed on 08.02.2012. Even on that day also, there was no application for delay was filed by the applicants hence the Tribunal passed the order as the case is “closed” as withdrawn by the applicants. Thereafter, the applicants filed two applications on 12.06.2012 i.e., I.A.No.152/2012 and I.A.No.201/2012 with a prayer to recall the order dated 08.02.2012 and to condonation of delay of 90 days in filing the recalling application. It is relevant to note that all these applications are accompanied with an affidavit sworn to by Malan Begum wife of Mohammed Shalam. The case was listed on 05.07.2012. Counsel for respondent prayed time file objections to the applications. Hence the case was listed on 07.08.2012. Again the matter was listed on 24.09.2012. The Tribunal vide order dated 24.09.2012 condoned the delay in filing the application for recalling the order of dismissal and restored the claim application. Suffice it to note that one more application i.e., I.A.No.202/2012 was also filed on 12.06.2012 to condone the delay in filing the main claim application. The Tribunal heard the application i.e., I.A.No.202/2012 and ultimately refused to condone the delay and rejected the claim application. Sri. S.Y. Shivalli., learned counsel while presenting his argument strenuously urged that the Tribunal is not justified in dismissing the application. I have considered the submission made on behalf of applicants. I am unable to accept the said contention. Limitation Act is a substantive law and its provision have to be adhered to in a manner than over a valuable right accrues in favor of one party, as a result unexplained sufficient of reasonable cause and directly as a result of negligence, default or inaction of the other party, such a right cannot be taken away lightly and in a routine manner. In the present case, the applicants are not diligent in prosecuting their action. As could be seen from the narration of events, at the initial stage, the applicants withdrew the application; thereafter the case was closed and the prayer to restore the dismissal order was also filed belatedly. In the present case, the applicants are not diligent in prosecuting their action. As could be seen from the narration of events, at the initial stage, the applicants withdrew the application; thereafter the case was closed and the prayer to restore the dismissal order was also filed belatedly. The Tribunal in extenso referred to the material on record in particular, the medical certificates furnished in support of the application and concluded that the applicants have failed to show sufficient cause/reason to condone the delay of 5 years 9 months and 18 days and ultimately dismissed the claim application. In my view, the Tribunal is justified in doing so. I find no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Resultantly, the Miscellaneous First Appeal is dismissed.