MC 3900/2007 BEFORE HON\BLE MR JUSTICE B D AGARWAL Heard Ms. D Borgohain, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr. GN Sahewalla, l earned senior counsel assisted by Mr. P.Bora as learned counsel for the responde nts. The appellant ’s case is that he could not file the appeal within the statutory period as he was suffering from sprain in the right hip joint and in support of his statement, a medical certificate issued by Dr. Biswajit Dutta, Sivasagar has also been annexed. The respondents in their affidavit denied the plea taken by the appellant about his illness. Accordingly, Dr. Biswajit Dutta was summoned personally and thereafter he was di rected to submit an affidavit as to, on what basis, he had issued the certificat e on 20.04.2007, advising more than five months rests. Accordingly, the affidavi t was filed on 24.03.2011. In the said affidavit, the Doctor has stated that th e patient had severe pain as well as swelling in the right hip joint and there w as restricted movement, mainly in squatting. The Doctor has further stated that the patient had a limp and weakness in the lower limb and therefore tenderness o n the right hip joint, wasping of muscle and soft tissue and the right leg coul d not be lifted beyond 30 degree. The doctor has further stated that the patient had also neurological deficiency and as such he was advised rest for four to si x months. Mr. Sahewalla submitted that a false certificate and affidavit have been issued/ filed by the doctor to justify long period of rest, advised to the appellant, im proving the story of the ailments. The learned counsel for the respondent has p rayed for cross- examination of the doctor. Presently, I am considering an application for condoning 31 days delay in filing second appeal. Admittedly, the appellant has taken a plea of severe pain and sw elling in his hip joint and this is certified by the doctor. In other words, th e doctor has re-affirmed the ailment of the appellant, as certified by him thro ugh his affidavit. Hence, I am not persuaded to give permission for cross-examin ation of the doctor. Upon hearing the learned counsel for both the sides, the delay is hereby condone d. Liberty is given to the opposite party/ respondents to file appropriate compl aint against the doctor before the Medical Council of India as well as before a competent authority of State government or before any appropriate forum. With the aforesaid observations, this misc. case stands disposed of. Registry shall proceed.