MC 3417/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Office note dated 1st December, 2010 reveals issuance of notice on the responden t Nos.1 and 2 by registered post with A/D on 30th November, 2010 in the addresse s given in the plaint. It appears from the office note dated 7th January, 2011 that while the responden t No.1 has been served and has entered appearance through the learned counsel, n either the A/D card nor the un-served notice issued to the respondent No.2 has b een returned to the Registry. Since more than 30(thirty) days have elapsed from the date of issuance of the no tice by registered post with A/D, the respondent No.2 is deemed to be served. None appears for the respondent No.2 to contest the proceeding and hence the pre sent proceeding will proceed ex-parte against him. Heard Mr. Das, learned counsel for the applicant. None appears for the respondent No.1, though the names of the learned counsel ap pearing for the said respondent are reflected in the cause list. The applicant by the present application is praying for condonation of delay of 44 days in preferring the appeal challenging the judgment and decree dated 23rd December, 2009 passed in Title Appeal No.14/2008, on the ground stated in the ap plication. No affidavit-in-opposition has been filed controverting the statement s made in the application. Having heard the learned counsel for the applicant and upon consideration of the averments made in the application seeking condonation of delay, I am of the vie w that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the app eal in time and hence the delay occurred in filing the appeal is condoned. Misc. Case stands allowed.