MC 1811/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Ms. Goswami, learned counsel for the applicants as well as Mr. Deka, learn ed counsel appearing for the sole respondent. The applicants, who are the widow and the minor son respectively of the deceased appellant No. 1 in RSA No. 31/2007, by the present application, are praying for condoning 230 days delay in filing the application praying for substituting the ir names in place of the deceased appellant No. 1, mainly on the ground that the y did not know about filing and pendency of the second appeal by their predecess or-in-interest. The prayer made in the application has been opposed by the sole respondent by fi ling affidavit-in-opposition contending that the applicants could not demonstrat e sufficient cause in not filing the application for substituting their names in time. Having heard the learned counsel for parties and upon consideration of the averm ents made in the application seeking condonation, reason for which have already been noticed above, I am of the view that the applicants were prevented by suffi cient cause in not filing the application seeking substitution in time. Hence th e delay of 230 days occurred in filing the substitution petition is condoned. Misc. Case stands allowed.