JUDGMENT S. N. Phukan, C. J.—This revision petition is directed against the order dated 26-3-1993 passed by the learned Additional District Judge (1), Shimla, in C. M. P No. 179-S/6 of 1989. By the impugned order learned Court below rejected the petition of the present petitioner filed under Order 41, Rule 19 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Heard learned Counsel for the parties, 2. From the impugned order, it appears that the petition was dismissed mainly on the ground of limitation. It is stated at the Bar that the delay in filing the petition was only one month. That apart, learned Counsel for the respondents has stated that suit for eviction was affirmed by this Court, decree was executed and the respondents are in possession of the house. Against that decree a suit was filed, which was dismissed and the appeal was also dismissed for default. Therefore, the above petition under Order 41, Rule 19 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure was filed. 3. I may refer to a decision of the apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag and another v, Mst. Katiji and others, AIR 1987 SG 1353. The apex Court observed that though the apex Court has a liberar approach regarding condonation of. delay, but the message does not appeal to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy Six principles were laid down by the apex Court. The said principles are as follows ; "1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing 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 highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. "Every days delay must be explained" does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hours delay, every seconds delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be referred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 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." 4. Though the learned Counsel for the respondents has urged that the present petition is not covered by the above decision, I am unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel, more particularly, keeping in view the fact that the present petitioner is an old lady. 5. Accordingly, the petition is accepted. The impugned order is set aside. In view of the above order, the petition under Order 41 Rule 19 read with section 151, C. P. C. is allowed. The appeal is directed to be restored to file and it should be heard on merits. 6. Both the parties shall appear with a certified copy of this order on 24-7-1995 before learned District Judge, Shimla, who may hear the case himself or transfer to any other Competent Court. No costs. Petition accepted.