JUDGMENT 1. - Having heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing this appeal which is reported to be time barred by 39 days. We are satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from filing the appeal within limitation in as much as due to wrong calculation of period of limitation by the counsel has resulted in filing this appeal on the reopening of the court after the summer vacation because according to his computation the period for filing the appeal expired during the summer vacation. Accordingly, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is allowed. 2. However on examining the appeal we find no merit in it. The appeal of the respondents has being allowed by this court by reaching in finding of fact on appreciation of evidence that the driver of the vehicle in question was guilty of rash and negligent driving and the defence now taken before this court was not pleaded in the reply to the claim petition. Since the decision turns on appreciation of evidence. No substantial question of law is required to be considered in this case. 3. Appeal is dismissed in limine.Application allowed. *******