1.5.2008 Present: Mr. Jiya Lal Bhardwaj, counsel for the petitioner. CMPMO No. 102 of 2008 This petition is directed against the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Shimla, in C.M.A. No. 60-S/6 of 2003, whereby the application for condonation of delay has been allowed and the delay in filing the appeal has been condoned. The facts necessary for the disposal of the case are that the suit for recovery of money was filed by the respondent – H.P. State Cooperative Marketing and Consumer Federation Limited against the present petitioner. It appears that the suit was settled before the Lok Adalat and the present petitioner agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 20,000/- in four instalments. However, no decree was passed in terms of the settlement. Thereafter the respondent filed an execution petition. This execution petition was dismissed on the ground that no decree has in fact been passed. Respondent thereafter approached the trial Court for correction of the order disposing the suit. This application was dismissed on 10th May, 2002. Thereafter copies of the orders of the trial Court both in the application as well as of the original order passed on 29.3.1997 CMPMO No. 102 of 2008 were applied for and the appeal was filed against the original order passed by the trial Court. As there was delay an application for condonation of delay was also filed. The application was prepared on 24th July 2002 and filed in the Court on 1st August, 2002. The learned lower Court below has condoned the delay in filing the appeal. It is obvious from the narration of the facts that respondent was diligently pursuing a remedy though the remedy may not have been the correct one. It also appears from the narration of the facts given by the learned trial Court that the petitioner herein had agreed to pay some amount to the respondent. However, the trial Court did not pass a decree and on this technical ground the execution was dismissed. Thereafter, respondent moved an application for correction of order dated 29th March, 1997. This application was dismissed on 10th May, 2002. In my view the delay in filing the appeal has been sufficiently explained by the respondent. Furthermore, there is no error of jurisdiction in the order of the lower appellate Court. In exercise of the supervisory jurisdiction vested under Section 227 of the Constitution of India, this Court would normally only interfere in matters where there is improper or illegal exercise of jurisdiction. There is no merit in this petition, hence, the same is dismissed. 1st May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta) ™ Judge.