MC 1148/2010 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.C. UPADHYAY (Ranjan Gogoi, J.) Heard Mr. S. Sarma, learned counsel for the applicant-appellant. None ha s appeared on behalf of the respondents in-spite of due service of notice. By this application, delay of 54 days that had occurred in instituting t he accompanying appeal has been prayed for. We have perused the grounds on which condonation has been prayed for which has been set out in paragraphs 3(a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the condonation petition. The respondents in-spite of due s ervice of notice have not appeared to contest the prayer for condonation. In the above circumstances and having regard to the statements made in paragraphs 3(a) , (b), (c), (d) and (e) of the condonation petition, we are of the view that the applicant-appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal in time. The delay of 54 days that has occurred in instituting the accompanying ap peal, therefore, is condoned. Miscellaneous case is accordingly allowed.