This second appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.4.1983 passed by the Assistant District Judge No. 1. Gauhati dismissing the Title Appeal No. 27/81 as time-barred. 2. The facts of the case are as follows : The appellant was the plaintiff in a suit being Title Suit No. 1 of 1969 which was dismiss­ed by the Munsiff Nalbari on 10-8-81. An appeal was filed by the plaintiff on 23.12.81. As there was some delay infilling the appeal, along with the appeal, a petition under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was also filed praying for condonation of delay. The appeal was admitted for hearing subject to the question of limitation. On 5.1.83, the appeal was taken up for hearing by the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1 at Gauhati, who by order dated 13-4-19&3, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The prayer for condonation was rejected on the ground that the appellant failed to explain every day's delay. Against the said order of dismissal of the appeal as barred by limitation, the present second appeal has been filed. 3. I have heard Mr. N. S. Deka, learned counsel for the appe­llant and also perused the judgment of the learned Assistant Dist­rict judge No. 1, Guwahati dismissing the appeal as barred by limita­tion. I have also considered the grounds for condonation of delay put forward by the appellant. It appear that there was sufficient cause for the delay which might justify condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The Assistant District Judge took a very strict view in the matter and rejected the petition for condonation. I find that the app­roach of the Assistant District Judge is not in consonance with the lat­est decisions of the Supreme Court, more particularly the decision in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji, AIR 1987 SC 1853 where it was held : "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 1 The doctrine must be applied in a rat­ional common sense pragmatic manner." 4. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 27/81 are set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned sub­ject to the payment of a sum of Rs. In that view of the matter, the judgment and decree of the learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati in Title Appeal No. 27/81 are set aside. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned sub­ject to the payment of a sum of Rs. 250/-bythe appellant to the Respondent within one month from today. The appeal is restored to file. The learned Assistant District Judge No. 1, Guwahati is dire­cted to hear the appeal and decide the same on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties. As the matter is a very old one, I direct that the appeal may be disposed of as expeditiously as po3sible, preferably within a period of four months. 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed.