MC 1526/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR RS GARG HON’BLE MR JUSTICE H BARUAH MC No.1526/2010 In Sl No.136451 Heard Mr R Islam, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr MUB Ahmed, le arned counsel for the respondent No.1. This is an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking con donation of delay of 423 days in filing the appeal. The first ground submitted at Bar was that the appellant was not served with the notice of the writ petition, therefore, he could not appear in the matt er. However, such argument is not tenable in view of the office report given in the writ petition and the endorsement made on the envelope containing the notice which says party refused . It was then contended that after obtaining the certified copy of the ord er on 6-5-2009 the petitioner contacted one Mr Zakir Hussain Saikia, who informe d the petitioner that the limitation has expired, therefore, nothing could be do ne. It is further stated that thereafter the appellant fell sick and recovered i n July, 2009 and thereafter because of the indebtedness and financial stringency he could not file the appeal. It is also stated that thereafter he was suggeste d that an appeal could still be filed. After going through all these material pleadings we are unable to hold t hat the applicant has made out a sufficient case for condoning the delay, when h e did not act diligently in seeking any other advice from any other counsel afte r Mr Zakir Hussain Saikia told him that nothing could be done in the matter. Not only this, the appellant became hale and hearty after July, 2009, though he was served with the notice for termination on 27-5-2009 he did not proceed to chall enge the order immediately. We find no reason to condone the delay. The application is rejected. In view of non condonation of delay the appeal is also dismissed.