JUDGMENT Mr. Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral):- The epitome of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record is that, initially, respondent-plaintiff, The Jaura Azad Cooperative Labour and Construction Society Limited (for brevity “the plaintiff”), has instituted the civil suit for recovery against the petitioners-defendants Punjab State and its Engineers (for short “the defendants”). Having completed all the codal formalities, the trial Court decreed the suit of plaintiff, vide judgment & decree dated 28.4.2011. 2. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioners-defendants have filed the appeal along with the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act (Annexure P1), for condonation of delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. The Appellate Court did not condone the delay and dismissed the application for condonation of delay, by means of impugned order dated 1.3.2012 (Annexure P-2). 3. The petitioners-defendants still did not feel satisfied and preferred the present revision petition to challenge the impugned order (Annexure P-2), invoking the superintendence jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable assistance and after considering the entire matter deeply, to my mind, the instant revision petition deserves to be accepted in this context. 5. As is evident from the record that, the petitioners-defendants have filed the appeal against the pointed judgment and decree of the trial Court, along with an application (Annexure P1) for condonation of delay of 148 days, inter-alia, pleading that the certified copies of judgment & decree were prepared on 9.5.2011 and were delivered to the office of District Attorney on 10.5.2011. The District Attorney, after seeking comments of the concerned law officers, forwarded the same to the Director Prosecution and Litigation, the file has crossed many stages of different channels of different departments of the State of Punjab mentioned therein the application, to take final decision to file the appeal. In this manner, the delay of 148 days has occurred to file the indicated appeal. The application for condonation was dismissed. In this manner, the delay of 148 days has occurred to file the indicated appeal. The application for condonation was dismissed. The main ground, which appears to have been weighed with the appellate Court to dismiss the application, was that instead of examining the Executive Engineer, who has filed the affidavit in support of the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, the petitioners-defendants have examined one Gurcharan Singh, SDE as AW1 in the Court in this respect. An adverse inference can be drawn against him and no original letters have been placed on record and proved in accordance with law to show sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Here, to me, the appellate Court has slipped into a deep legal error in this regard. 6. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that the petitionersdefendants have filed the detailed application (Annexure P1) for condonation of delay and listed various stages of different channels of different departments of State Government, in which, the matter was processed and ultimately, the decision was taken to file the appeal. The application was duly supported by the affidavit of concerned XEN. There is no legal requirement to examine the concerned Executive Engineer, who has filed his affidavit in support thereof, particularly when the State Government has examined the concerned SDE as AW1 in the Court. Moreover, it is not a matter of dispute that the file to take decision to prefer the appeal has crossed and passed many different channels of different departments of the State of Punjab. The appellate Court has adopted the hyper-technical grounds to dismiss the application (Annexure P1) for condonation of delay. Therefore, there are sufficient grounds to condone the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal. 7. Not only that, the fundamental jurisprudence and the basic concept of law of limitation is well settled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in cases Ram Nath Sao alias Ram Nath Sahu and others v. Gobardhan Sao and others, AIR 2002 Supreme Court 1201 and The State of West Bengal v. The Administrator, Howrah Municipality and others, (1972) 1 Supreme Court Cases 366 : AIR 1972 SC 749 , has reiterated that the expression “sufficient cause” within the meaning of Section 5 of the Act should receive a liberal construction when no mala fide is imputable to a party, so as to advance substantial justice. 8. 8. Sequelly, in case Sital Prasad Saxena (dead) by LRs v. Union of India and others, AIR 1985 Supreme Court 1, it was ruled that the Courts should recall that “what has been said umpteen times that rules of procedure are designed to advance justice and should be so interpreted and not to make them penal statutes for punishing erring parties. 9. Likewise, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in cases N.Balakrishnan v. M.Krishnamurthy, (1998) 7 Supreme Court Cases, 123 and Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v. Mst.Katiji and others, AIR 1987 Supreme Court 1353, has held that the legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on ‘merits’. The expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice that being the life-purpose for the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy and enumerated the following principles:- 1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. Every day’s delay must be explained” does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped that judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 10. Possibly, no one can lose sight of the fact that the decree for recovery has been passed and valuable rights of the petitionersdefendants are involved in the litigation. The State of Punjab was not going to be benefitted in any manner for the delay in filing the appeal. Taking into consideration the nature of litigation and indicated attending circumstances, the Appellate Court ought to have condoned the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal under the present set of circumstances, particularly when the opposite side could possibly be compensated with adequate costs. 11. In the light of aforesaid reasons, the instant revision petition is accepted and the impugned order(Annexure P-2) is hereby set aside. Consequently, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and the delay of 148 days in filing the appeal is hereby condoned in the obtaining circumstances of the case. The Appellate Court is directed to entertain the appeal for regular hearing and dispose of the same in accordance with law. However, this would be subject to the payment of Rs. 7700/- as costs to be paid by the petitioners-defendants to the respondent-plaintiff as compensatory cost. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the Appellate Court on 25.04.2014 for further proceedings in the matter. ---------0.B.S.0------------