I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties. On one hand, it is submitted by Mr. Ghosh that on 07.06.2014 the petitioners came to know about the judgment and on the other hand, Mr. Saikia submits that the said fact is not at all believable inasmuch as the judgment was passed in presence of the conducting counsel of the appellant. As against the contention of Mr. Saikia, the same cannot be accepted inasmuch as parties need not be present on each date fixed in an appeal. So, the submission that the petitioners came to know about the judgment on 07.06.2014 is considered probable. Moreover, after receipt of the information the petitioners were not sitting idle rather they applied for the certified copy and received the same on 25.06.2014. It is submitted by Mr. Saikia that the said period from 25.06.2014 to 27.07.2014 remained unexplained. The subsequent illness is not disputed by Mr. Saikia, however the nonexplanation of the period from 25.06.2014 to 27.07.2014 is to be considered. Though the said unexplained period is beyond the 90 days period for filing the appeal though that is not relevant but in the present factual matrix the same is to be considered because the ground stated in the petition is owing to financial stringency and for this the petitioner no. 2 could not come to Guwahati. As hereinabove stated, the financial unsoundness cannot be a ground for condonation of delay but even then as because the said period does not fall within the said period of 90 days, it would not affect much once it is held that the petitioner need not be present on each date fixed in an appeal. As such, I hold the grounds to be satisfactory and condone the delay of 87 days in filing the connected second appeal, however, subject to payment of a cost of Rs. 2,000/-. The amount is to be deposited within 15 days from today in the Registry of this court and transmitted to the Legal Aid Cell of the Gauhati High Court. This application stands disposed of.
