MC 1133/2009 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BP KATAKEY Heard Mr. Dutta, learned counsel for the applicant. The applicant Insurance Company, by the present application, is seeking condonat ion of 51 days delay in preferring the appeal against the award dated 26.9.2008 passed in MAC 70/2005 on the grounds stated in Para 3 of the application, which is quoted below: - 3. That the impugned award was passed on 26.9.2008 and the counsel for the Insu rance Company intimated the same to the company by furnishing legal opinion on 1 4.10.2008 and the Divisional Manager of the Insurance Company sent the entire fi le to the Regional Office, Guwahati on 28.10.2008 for preferring an appeal and t he legal Department of the Regional office, after scrutinizing the entire matter , sought for the certified copy of the impugned award which was furnished to the Regional Office on 12.12.2008. Thereafter, the Regional Office of the Company s ent the file to their counsel to prefer appeal on 26.12.2008. The counsel after going through the file, could find some necessary documents such as written stat ement, copies of the deposition, etc, missing and therefore, he called for those documents from the petitioner company on 16.01.2009. The petitioner company, af ter procuring the documents, furnished the same to the counsel on 28.01.2009. Th e counsel accordingly prepared the appeal to file it on 2.3.2009, and the entire sequence of events inadvertently led to a delay of 51 days in filing the appeal . While the respondent No. 2 i.e. the owner of the offending vehicle contested the present proceeding by filing the affidavit-in-opposition, the other respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-opposition controverting the statements made in the application for condonation of delay despite service. In the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No. 2 it has been stated that the grounds taken in the application seeking condonation of delay do not co nstitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act so as to condone the delay in filing the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the avermen ts made in the application seeking condonation of delay, I am of the view that t he applicant was prevented by sufficient cause in not preferring the appeal in t ime. Hence the delay of 51 days occurred in preferring the appeal is condoned. Misc. Case stands allowed.