CR 78 of 2007. 7.4.2008 Present: Mr. Bhupinder Gupta, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Janesh Gupta, counsel for the petitioners. Ms. Ruma Kaushik, Addl. AG, for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.C.Negi, counsel for respondent No. 2. This is the revision petition filed by the petitioners herein who were the applicants before the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jubbal, Distt. Shimla. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was preferred by the petitioners in which they pleaded that the petition under Order 9 Rules 4 and 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure moved by them was barred by time and that the delay in instituting this application may be condoned in the interest of justice. The learned trial Court, on consideration of the material on record, did not justify benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act being granted to the petitioners. The ground taken by the petitioners for invoking the provisions for condonation of delay are that the appeal titled Kanwar Chand versus State of Himachal Pradesh was pending in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Shimla and was fixed for 22.9.2004. They received a communication from their counsel that the appeal has been fixed for -2- decision on 26.10.2004. The petitioners were under a general impression that the case shall be fixed at Shimla and kept waiting for a communication from their counsel. It was only when they contacted counsel in the first week of December, 2004 that they learnt that the appeal had been disposed of. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned trial Court has taken a very hyper technical view in considering the evidence of AW-1 to AW-3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The general principles governing limitation are that a liberal view should be adopted. The learned trial Court has, in this case, adopted a technical view in the matter by denying the benefit of Section 5 of the Limitation Act to the petitioners. It is by now well settled that unless it can be established that the delay which has been occasioned is malafide or with a deliberate intent of manipulating the legal process, the benefit of Section 5 should not be denied to a litigant. This revision petition is accordingly allowed. The judgment and order of the learned trial Court is quashed and set aside. -3- Application under Section 5 filed by the petitioners is allowed. This is of course subject to the petitioners paying Rs.700/- as costs to the respondents on their first appearance before the trial Court. Parties to appear before the learned trial Court on 30.6.2008. The learned trial Court shall thereafter proceed with the matter in accordance with law. Let records be sent back immediately. April 7, 2008(PC). (Dev Darshan Sud), J.