Respondent No.2 is already served as per R.P.A.D. received.  Respondent No.1 – Ms.Nanda Tate is deemed to be served in view of the endorsement by postal authority that from 09.11.2010 to 15.11.2011 the addressee was given intimation to collect packet sent by R.P.A.D., but, she did not bother to collect the same. So she is deemed to be served.

               Heard Mr.Nikhil Mehta, Advocate for the Appellant on delay condonation application.  Respondent Nos.1 and 2 are duly served, but, they are absent.  Notice was issued on delay condonation application.  Since they are not contradicting condonation of delay application and averments made therein and since there is just and sufficient cause given by the Appellant/Original Opposite Party to file appeal belatedly which has been explained by giving datewise events, we are satisfied that delay occurred due to sufficient cause and therefore, it is required to be condoned to decide the appeal on merit.  Hence, we pass the following order:

O  R  D  E R

    (i)               Misc.Application No.607/2010 filed for condonation of delay is allowed.

  (ii)               Delay is condoned subject to cost of `5,000/- to be credited to legal aid fund of this Commission.