Judgment · High Court

Heard Mr. R.C. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant. Also heard Mr. R. Islam, learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as well as Ms. M. Gogoi, learned counsel for the respondent No.5. From the Registry’s note dated 15.09.2012 it appears that neither the AD Card no r the unserved notice in respect of the respondent No.4 has been received by the Registry as yet though the fresh notice was issued on the respondent No.4 on 03 .05.2012. In view of this, service on the respondent No.4 be deemed to have been complete in view of the provision of Order V Rule 9(5) of CPC. Accordingly, service on a ll the respondents is complete. This is an application under provisio to Section 173 of the Motor Vehicles Act f or condoning the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal against the judgment and award dated 29.12.2010 as passed in MAC Case No.695/2005 (281 of 2005) by the Mo tor Accident Claims Tribunal, Kamrup, Guwahti. Mr. Paul, learned counsel appearing for the appellant-applicant has submitted th at the causes of delay have been assigned in paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of this applic ation. Those causes constitute sufficient cause for condonation of delay. As such, the delay of 55 days in filing the appeal is condoned. Accordingly, this Misc. case stands disposed of.