MC 1528/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Barkataki, learned counsel for the applicants and Mr. Barman, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The applicants by the present application has prayed for condonation of delay of 347 days in preferring the appeal, on the ground stated in paragraph 3 of the a pplication, i.e. basically on the ground that the learned counsel, who has been engaged initially fell ill and was hospitalized in a hospital in Guwahati and th ereafter, in a hospital in Noida and thereafter, though the file was entrusted t o another learned counsel, he left for England because of which the file could n ot be traced out, which, however, subsequently be reconstructed and appeal was f iled. The prayer made in the application is opposed by the respondents by filing objec tion contending that the applicants were not vigilant and there was laches on th eir part in not preferring the appeal in time. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and upon perusal of t he averments made in the application as well as in the objection filed, I am of the view that the applicants were prevented by sufficient cause in not preferrin g the appeal in time, as they cannot be allowed to suffer because of the illness of the learned counsel as well as the fault that may be of the learned counsel. In view of the above, the delay of 347 days occurred in filing the appeal is con doned. Misc. Case stands allowed.