MC 2743/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH Heard Mr. P.K. Kalita, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Ms. S. Sena pati, learned counsel for the respondents. This is an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay of 198 days in filing the connected arbitration appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.6.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit(Arbitr ation) No. 55/2005. Mr. P. K. Kalita, learned counsel in support of the application submitted that t he petitioner herein was prevented by the grounds indicated in the application i n preferring the appeal in time. It is submitted by Mr. Kalita that in terms of the order dated 22.9.1999 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jorhat, in Title Suit(Arbitration) No. 66/1995, an arbitration award dated 16.7.2004 was f iled, copy of which was received on or about 16.7.2004. The petitioner thereafte r filed an application u/s 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 before the Civil Judg e, Sr. Division, Jorhat, for setting aside the award. The aforesaid application was dismissed on the ground for not filing the same u/s 34 of the Arbitration an d Conciliation Act, 1996, before the District Judge, Jorhat. Ultimately the tria l judge keeping the issue of limitation open u/s 34 of the Arbitration and Conci liation Act, 1996, by order dated 27.6.2006, the aforesaid application was dismi ssed on the ground of limitation. A review petition was filed, but the same was also dismissed by order dated 8.12.2006. It is contended by Mr. Kalita that though the review petition was dismissed on 8 .12.2006 the petitioner came to know about the dismissal only on 17.1.2007, on w hich day the petitioner filed an application for certified copy of the judgment. The certified copy of the judgment was made ready for delivery on 22.1.2007, bu t in the meantime, he fell sick and he was unable to proceed with the matter so that he can file the arbitration appeal against the order dated 27.6.2006 passed by the District Judge, Jorhat in Title Suit(Arbitration) No. 55/2005. This fact s, it is submitted by Mr. Kalita, prevented the petitioner from filing the arbit ration appeal in time. This petition is resisted by filing objection by the respondents. It is contende d by Ms. Senapati, learned counsel for the respondents that the grounds so proje cted in the application cannot be said to be sufficient and cogent for condoning the delay of 198 days. It is submitted by Ms. Senapati, learned counsel that th e petitioner was not vigilant about his cause. Ms. Senapati, learned c ounsel prays to this Court not to allow this petition filed u/s 5 of the Limitat ion Act, 1963. I have considered the grounds as incorporated in the petition and also the submi ssions so advanced by the learned counsel for both the parties. From a perusal o f the grounds as indicated in the petition, it appears that the petitioner was p revented by sufficient grounds for not filing the application for condonation of delay in time. Taking note of the facts and the grounds indicated in the petition, this Court c onsiders it a fit case where delay can be condoned and the application can be de cided on merit. The delay of 198 days in preferring the connected appeal is condoned. The application is disposed of.