IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Revision Petition No.1025 of 2010. Date of Decision : 26.3.2010. Gursant Singh & others ......Petitioners Versus Ramesh Kumar & another ......Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present: Mr. Ajay Pal Singh, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Parminder P. Sharma, Advocate, for the respondents. NAWAB SINGH J. This defendants' revision is directed against the order dated November 4th, 2009 passed by Additional District Judge, Sangrur, whereby, application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of six days in filing the appeal was dismissed on the ground of non-appearance of the petitioners or their counsel on the date of hearing and also for failure to lead evidence inspite of five opportunities granted to them. As a consequence thereof, the appeal was also dismissed. The First Appellate Court framed the issues as to whether delay of six days was to be condoned or not and thereafter, directed the petitioners to lead evidence. Not only that, five opportunities were accorded to the petitioners to lead evidence. On November 4th, 2009 since nobody appeared on behalf of the petitioners, the Appellate Court closed the evidence and thereafter proceeded to decide the issue against the petitioners because no evidence was led by them and dismissed the application without touching the merits of the appeal. It is not expected from a Judge of the rank of Additional District Judge to decide the appeal in such a slipshod manner. The application could have been decided, particularly when there was delay of only six days in filing the appeal, on the basis of the averments made by the petitioner. The First Appellate Court also did not take into consideration the grounds averred by the petitioners in their application rather the same was dismissed on the ground of non-prosecution and for not leading the evidence to prove the ground on which the condonation of delay was sought. It would have been in the interest of justice to condone the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal and thereafter decide the appeal on merits. Refusal 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 'worst' that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 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. 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. The order under challenge is not justifiable. In view thereof, the revision is accepted. Order under challenge is set-aside. Delay of 6 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Appellate Court is directed to decide the appeal on merits. (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 26.3.2010. SN