JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal is directed against the order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge, by which the learned Single Judge dismissed the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act on the ground that no affidavit of the Advocate concerned has been filed indicating the reasons for the delay. 2. The consequence of rejection of the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act was that the appeal also stood dismissed as being barred by time. 3. The appellant, while filing the appeal, also filed an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. This application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is supported by the affidavits of Mr. Anil Kumar Surana-the Vice President (Commercial) of the appellant company, as well as that of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, in his affidavit, has specifically stated on 3.12.1992 he came to know that the writ petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 15.11.1992. He applied for the certified copy of the order on 6.1.1993, which was received on 8.1.1993. He further stated that he, after studying the relevant provisions, prepared the case on 8.1.1992 but due to inadvertence, all the papers including the legal opinion given by him, were tagged with the papers in the file of other case which was fixed at Chandigarh. He remained out of Udaipur from 11.1.1993 to 14.1.1993 and while studying the case file on 14.1.1993, he came across the papers of this case and immediately after return from his professional tour, he handed-over the papers to the concerned officer of the appellant company on 19.1.1993 and immediately thereafter the appeal was filed. 4. The affidavit of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, was on record, which could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. In view of the affidavit of Shri R.C. Gupta, Advocate, as well as the affidavit of Shri Anil Kumar Surana, sufficient cause has been shown for condonation of the delay and the learned Single Judge was, r therefore, not justified in rejecting the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act filed by the petitioner- appellant for condonation of the delay. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, therefore, deserves to be quashed and set-aside. 5. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellant-petitioner is allowed. The order dated 7.2.1995 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set-aside and the application under section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. The delay of two days in filing the appeal is condoned and the appeal shall he treated as filed within the time. The case is remanded to the learned Single Judge.The appeal may, now, be registered and placed before the learned Single Judge for Admission.Special Appeal Allowed. *******