MC 720/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H. BARUAH. Heard Mr. J. Islam, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. N. Haque, l earned counsel for the respondent, who arose objection in condoning the delay of 85 days in preferring the connected appeal. Mr. Islam in support of this application has led me the paragraphs of the applic ation, particularly, the paragraph Nos. 3,4 and 5 in regard to the grounds for d elay. Mr. N. Haque, learned counsel for the respondent by filing an affidavit-in-oppos ition submits that delay from 3rd week of November, 2009 to 23-12-2009 is not pr operly explained. I have meticulously perused the grounds contended in the application. In praragr aph-5 though some explanation has been offered for such delay in preferring the appeal, it appears that such delay is not properly explained, for which the lear ned counsel for the respondent raised objection. It would appear from the application as well as the counter affidavit that the p etition is not hit by latches on the part of the petitioner in preferring the ap peal against the judgment and decree dated 10-06-09 and 16-06-09 passed in Title Appeal No. 39 of 07. Taking note of the grounds and the objection raised, this court finds it appropr iate to condone the delay of 85 days in preferring the connected appeal. Delay i s accordingly condoned. Misc. case stands disposed of.