S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) PETETIONER was employed on daily wages as typist in the respondent-Bank, whose services were terminated after 1/10/1990 (Annexure-A) Petitioner raised a dispute by an application undar Section 55 (2)of the M. P. Co-operative Societies Act 1960 (for short the Act) Bafore the deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, which was dismissed by order 28/9/. 991 of which a corv was supplied to the petitioner on 30/10/1991. The petitioner filed an appeal under Section 77 of ths Act on 11/11/1991 with an application for condonation of delay suoported bv an affi lavit stating therein that the petitioner contacted his counsel for filing an aopeal who told him to contact on 2/11/1991, the petitioner received a message that mother is seriously ill, therefore he rushed to Jabalpur and on his return. the appeal was filed on 11/11/1991 a medical certificate of illness of his mother was also filed. The respondent Bank opposed the applicatioa for condonation of delay. The Join' Registrar, Co-operative Societies, dismissed the appeal as barred by time holding that the petitioner ought to have been taken steps for filing the appeal with the period of limitation, hence. no sufficient cause for condonation of delay is made out. Against this order, a second appeal was preferred before the Board of Revenue which was also dismissed, hence, this pettion under Article 223 and 227 of the Constitution of India. ( 2 ) SHRI R. K. Gupta submitted that the sufficient causa is to be construed liberally in the absence of mis-conduct, the approach of the Joint registrar and she Board of Revenue is erroneous. Not only this order terminating the service of the petitioner is per se void in view of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the conditions precedent to termination were not complied with. ( 3 ) SMT. June Choudhary learned counsel for the respondent Bank supported the order of Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies and that of the Board of Revenue and submitted that finding of the 'co-operative Courts is a finding of fact which cannot be interferred under Article 2/7 of the constitution. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the opinion that the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies decided the application with an erroneous approch, while considering an application for condonation of dailsy, the Supreme Coart in case of Collector Land. Acquisition. ( 4 ) AFTER hearing counsel on both sides, I am of the opinion that the joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies decided the application with an erroneous approch, while considering an application for condonation of dailsy, the Supreme Coart in case of Collector Land. Acquisition. Anantaag and another v. Mst Kutils, and others. AIR 1987 SC 1353 his observed that a liberal approach is to be made while considering a case for condonation of delay for filing aa appeal and considering the application of delay laid down principles which 1 quote : (1) Ordinarily a litigiaut does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. (2) Refusing to condone delay on result in a meritorious matter being there on out at the very threshold and causs of justice being defeated. (3) As against his when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause should be decided on merits after hearing the parties. (3) "every day's delay must be explained" does not mean that a pctants approach should be made Why not every hour's delay, every second delay ? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. (4) When substantial justice and technical consideration are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in justice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. (5) There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable neglignce, 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 legalise injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. " ( 5 ) NEITHER the Joint Registrar nor the Board of Revenue has consi-dered the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, tbe order of Board of Revenue as well that of the Joint Registrar, Co-opeiative Societies cannot be sustained. " ( 5 ) NEITHER the Joint Registrar nor the Board of Revenue has consi-dered the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, tbe order of Board of Revenue as well that of the Joint Registrar, Co-opeiative Societies cannot be sustained. Accordingly, the matter is to go back to Joint Kegistrar, co-operative Societies for consideration of the application for condonation of dday afresh in accordance with law and in the light of the principles laid down by the Supreme Court, Parties to appear before the Joint Registrar. Co-operative Socities on 9/11/1995 for which no notice shall be issued as they have bn noticed here. ( 6 ) PETITION shall stand disposed of with no order as to costs. C. C. as per rules. .