Mr. Justice A.L. Bahri, President—Vide this order, two appeals arising out of identical facts are being disposed of. The main order is prepared in Appeal No. 48 of 1995 and this order will cover the connected Appeal No. 25 of 1995. There is one additional point raised in Appeal No. 48 of 1995 which is disposed of before referring to the facts of the case.

2. Alongwith the appeal, an application for condonation of delay in filing, the appeal was filed. During pendency of the appeal, another application for condonation of delay was filed. The applications have been opposed. As to whether there is sufficient cause for condoning the delay in filing the appeal, brief facts of the main case also deserves to be noticed. The complainants applied for 100 shares of the Company, M/s. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited, Gujarat. Since after allotment of the shares, the same were not received by the complainant, they filed the complaint before the District Forum. Notices were issued to the opposite parties. Written statement on behalf of opposite party No. 1 appellant referred to above was filed through post raising preliminary objections and on merits, asserting that after allotment of the shares, the same were sent to the complainants by registered post. However, the same were received back undelivered. Subsequently, duplicate share certificates were again sent. At the time of hearing arguments before the District Forum, the opposite parties remained absent and complainant’s Counsel argued the case. The District Forum vide its order dated 24.5.95 allowed the complaint granting certain reliefs in favour of the complainants. On the same day, connected case arising out of the similar facts was likewise disposed of. The District Forum purported to have sent copies of the orders to the appellants. The appellant filed Appeal No. 25 in the connected case which is well within time. Appeal No. 48 of 1995 was also filed by the appellant alongwith photo copy of the impugned order as the same was sent to the appellant by the complainant. In the first application for condonation of delay, it was asserted that no copy of the order was sent by the District Forum in this case to the appellants and thus appeal was filed alongwith photo copy of the order, otherwise received by the appellants as stated above. Subsequently, another application for condonation of delay was filed as Counsel for the appellants visited the District Forum and came to know that certified copy of the impugned order was sent to the appellants as there existed acknowledgement due receipt on the record. It was asserted in the second application that the certified copy alleged to have been sent by the District Forum was misplaced and did not reach the department concerned of the appellants. The Counsel for the appellants visited District Forum on 21.8.95 and obtained another certified copy from the District Forum which was filed in this appeal and taken on the record. Reference was also made to some of the letters written by the appellants to the District Forum in the meantime intimating non-receipt of certified copy of the order. While opposing these applications the complainants have taken up the stand that there was no sufficient cause shown for condonation of delay as in July, 1995 the complainants informed the appellants about the passing of the order in this case by sending photo copy of the order and immediate steps should have been taken by the appellants even from the date of receipt of that letter. Efforts made on 21.8.95 to obtain the certified copy which has been filed will not extend the limitation and hence there is no sufficient ground for condonation of delay.

3. In the peculiar circumstances, when the appellant is situated miles away from the place of sitting of the District Forum, ordinarily prompt action could not be expected to be taken as is ordinarily taken by the parties in the civil suit. Immediately when it was brought to the notice of the appellants