THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE L. NARASIMHA REDDY C.R.P. No.5287 of 2010 ORDER: The respondent filed O.S.No.298 of 2005 in the Court of Principal Junior Civil Judge, Chirala against the petitioner for recovery of certain amount on the basis of a promissory note. The trial Court decreed the suit on 02-08-2007. The petitioner preferred an appeal in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala. There was delay of 27 days, and accordingly he filed I.A.No.18 of 2008 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. He pleaded that he was bedridden on account of malaria, in August 2007, and he recovered from it after a month, in September 2007. The respondent opposed the application, stating that the petitioner very much attended the duties in the place of his employment. The trial Court dismissed the I.A.No.18 of 2008, through order dated 14-10-2008. Hence, this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent. The delay involved is just 27 days. The petitioner pleaded illness, and that has caused for the delay. The respondent pleaded that the petitioner was attending to the duties at the place of his employment, and the plea of illness is incorrect. The trial Court passed a detailed order and dismissed the I.A, by taking the view that no oral and documentary evidence was adduced by the petitioner. In the recent past, this Court has come across good number of cases, in which the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Chirala had dismissed the application for condonation of delay by adopting hyper-technical approach. It is just unimaginable as to how the Court was so stringent, in the context of disposing of an application for condonation of delay of 27 days. It may not be a surprise that a respondent in such an application would oppose it, tooth and nail. However, the Court must be realistic in such approach and graceful in consideration. A citizen may be forced to think as to, when the Courts are not adhering to the schedule as to disposal of various matters, as mandated by the relevant provisions of law, how can they expect the parties to be so meticulous. Further, it is only the persons, who are addicted to pursue the litigation almost as a profession, that would be prompt in taking various steps. Citizens who have other avocations, cannot be expected to deal with the Court matters on priority. The whole approach of the trial Court was untenable. The C.R.P is accordingly allowed, and the order under revision is set aside. As a result, I.A.No.18 of 2008 is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ L. NARASIMHA REDDY, J. Dt.08-08-2011. KO