1. Learned counsel for respondent no.2 is present while the notice upon respondent no.1 has not yet been served.

2. From perusal of the record, it appears that the case has proceeded ex parte against respondent no.1 in the learned Court below. Hence, in my considered opinion, there is no need of taking any recourse of substituted service of notice against respondent no.1. The appellant is exempted to take such recourse.

Re.: I.A. No.3964 of 2009

3. This interlocutory application has been filed for condoning the delay of 26 days in preferring this appeal.

4. Respondent no.2 has not filed any counter affidavit against the aforesaid limitation petition.

5. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the submissions made by the appellant, I find that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause in preferring the appeal within the stipulated period of limitation. Hence, the aforesaid delay in filing the appeal is condoned and this interlocutory application is allowed.

M.A. No.327 of 2009

6. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the United India Insurance Company Limited on this miscellaneous appeal.

7. This miscellaneous appeal has been preferr