MC 1600/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.P. KATAKEY Heard Mr. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant as well as Mr. M.K. C houdhury, learned Sr. counsel for the respondent. The petitioner, who was the plaintiff in Title Suit No.278/1997, by the present application is seeking condonation of delay of 663 days in preferring th e appeal against the judgment and decree dated 23.11.2006 passed by the learned Civil Judge No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Appeal No.38/2001 dismissing the sa me by affirming the judgment and decree dated 28.08.2000 passed by the learned C ivil Judge (Junior Division) No.3, Kamrup, Guwahati, in Title Suit No.278/1997. It is the contention of the petitioner in the petition that after filing the appeal being Title Appeal No.38/2001, she had to busy in looking after his brother-in-law, who was suffering from Alzheimer disease from the early part of the year 2006 and about which she informed her counsel, who though assured her t hat he will inform about the outcome of the appeal, however, has not informed he r about the disposal of the appeal. According to the petitioner, she came to kno w from a reliable source, which source has subsequently been disclosed in the af fidavit-in-reply filed, about filing of another suit by the respondent being Tit le Suit No.308/2008 and when she made an enquiry about the said suit, she came t o know that the appeal filed by her has been dismissed. It has also been contend ed in the application that her brother-in-law eventually died on 02.01.2007. The applicant in the present application further stated that on coming to know abou t the disposal of the said appeal, she applied for the certified copy of the jud gment and decree, which was received on 05.01.2009. But thereafter she had to go to Hyderabad for cataract operation of her right eye, which was done on 20.01.2 009 and thereafter she could file the appeal only on 09.02.2009, thereby causing delay of 663 days. The respondent in the affidavit has contended that the illness of the br other-in-law cannot be the ground for condonation of delay. It has further been contended that there was inaction on the part of the petitioner in pursuing the appeal and in making inquiry about the same for more than 2 years and as such th e delay may not be condoned. I have considered the submission of the learned counsel for both the par ties and also perused the pleadings. As noticed above, the petitioner’s brother-in-law was suffering from Alz heimer disease from the early part of the year 2006 and the petitioner had to lo ok after him as her husband was busy and remained outside Guwahati relating to t he contractual work. The brother-in-law eventually expired on 02.01.2007. It is also the contention of the petitioner, as noticed above, that she informed the l earned counsel about her difficulty and also requested him to inform her about t he outcome of the appeal, but she was not informed about the outcome. In an appe al the parties are not required to appear in Court in day to day hearing. They n ormally rely on the learned counsel. According to the petitioner, she has not be en informed about the outcome of the appeal by the counsel engaged by her. It al so appears that the petitioner was suffering from eye trouble, for which she had to be treated in hospitals in Hyderabad. Having considered the aforesaid facts, I am of the view that the petitio ner was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in time. Henc e the delay of 663 days occurred in filing the appeal is condoned, subject to pa yment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the respondent. Misc. case stands disposed of.