Y. K. Sabharwal J. ( 1 ) RULE 5 is as under :- "rule - 5. Amendment - The D. R. , A. R. , Incharge of the Filing counter, may specify the objections (a copy of which will be kept for the court record) and return for amendment and re-filing within a time not exceeding 7 days at a time and 30 days in the aggregate to be fixed by him, any memo. of appeal, for die reason specified in Order XLI, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. (2) If the memo. of appeal is not taken back for amendment within the time allowed by DR, A. R. , it shall be registered and listed before the court for its dismissal tor non-procecution. (3) It the memo. of appeal is filed beyond the time allowed by the D. R. , A. R, under sub-rule (1) it shall be considered as fresh institution. "note - The provisions contained in Rule 5 (1), 5 (2) and 5 (3) shall mutatis munadis apply to all matters, whether civil or criminal. ( 6 ) RULE-2 reads as under :- Rule-2. Endorsement and scrutiny of documents. " (A)THE officer in charge of the filing-counter shall endorse the date of receipt on the plaint, petition, application or proceedings and also on the duplicate copy of the index and return the same to the party. He shall enter the particulars of all such documents in the register of daily filing and thereafter cause it to be sent to the office concerned for examination. If on scrutiny, the document is found to be defective such document shall after notice to the party filing the same be placed before the Registrar. The Registrar may for sufficient cause return the said document for rectification or amendment to the party filing the same, and for this purpose may allow to the party conerned such reasonable time as he may consider necessary. (b) Where the party fails to take any step for the removal of the defect within the time fixed for the same, the Registrar may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, decline to register the document. (c) Any party aggreived by any order made by the Registrar under this rule may, within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal against it to the Judge in Chambers. (c) Any party aggreived by any order made by the Registrar under this rule may, within fifteen days of the making of such order, appeal against it to the Judge in Chambers. " ( 7 ) REFERENCE has also been made to certain practice directions issued by the High Court conerning the filing and return of documents. The contention of Mr. Gupta is that the refiling of the application for leave to defend would be governed by aforesaid Rule-2 and refiling of such a document does not amount to fresh institution as aforesaid rule in Vol. 5 of High Court Rules and Orders has no applicability to the matters on the Original Side of this Court. For the view, we are taking on mertis of the facts of the present case, it is not necessary to decide the contention urged by Mr. Gupta. ( 8 ) NOTWITHSTANDING which of the aforesaid Rules are applicable, the question of condonation of delay in refiling of an application has to be considered from a different angle and viewpoint as compared to consideration of condonation to delay in initial filing. The delay in refiling is not subject to the rigorous tests which are usually applied in excusing the delay in a petition filed u/s 5 of the Limitation Act (See Indian Statistical Institute Vs. Associated Builders AIR 1978 SC. (335 ). In the present case, the initial delay of 7 days in filing the application for leave to defend stood condoned and that has not been challenged by any of the parties. It is no doubt true that the counsel for the appellant had not been very diligent after filing of application for leave to defend on 19. 8. 95 as counsel did not check whether the application was lying in Registry with any objection or not. Considering, however, the nature of the objections, it was a matter of removal of the objections by die counsel and on the facts of present case, it is difficult in this case to attribute any negligence to the party. On the facts of the case, the" effect of negligence or casual approach , which would be the appropriate term to be used here, of the counsel or his client, does not deserve to be so rigorous so as to deny condonation of delay in refiling the application. On the facts of the case, the" effect of negligence or casual approach , which would be the appropriate term to be used here, of the counsel or his client, does not deserve to be so rigorous so as to deny condonation of delay in refiling the application. The casual approach of the counsel is evident as no timely efforts were made firstly to find out after filing application on 19. 8. 95 as to whether the Registry had raised any objection or not. Secondly, despite order of the Joint Registrar dated 9. 1. 96, the objection was removed only on 4. 3. 96 i. e. after the date which the Joint Registrar had fixed for the application being posted for hearing before the court. When the application was relied on 4. 3. 96, one would expect the person filing to be more careful thereby not giving an opportunity to the Registry to raise any other objection. But that was not so. The result was that the second objection was raised which, as noticed above, was removed on 21. 3. 96 but application was refiled only on 27. 3. 96. Apart from this casual approach, we do not find any malafide intention on the part of the appellant to delay the proceedings. When there is negligence or casual approach in a matter like this in refiling of an application, thogh the court may not be powerless to reject an application seeking condonation and may decline to condone the delay but at the same time, passing of any other appropriate order including imposition of cost can be considered by the court to compensate the other party from delay which may occur on account of refiling of the application. ( 9 ) ON the facts and circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that ends of justice would be met, if the delay in refiling the application for leave to defend is condoned on payment of costs by the appellant to be the respondent. Therefore, we allow the appeal and condone the delay in refiling, as prayed in IA. 4380/96 subject, however, to payment of costs of Rs. 10. 000. 00 by the appellant to the respondent. On the payment of costs by the next date before learned Single Judge, the application for leave to defend would be considered on its merits. Therefore, we allow the appeal and condone the delay in refiling, as prayed in IA. 4380/96 subject, however, to payment of costs of Rs. 10. 000. 00 by the appellant to the respondent. On the payment of costs by the next date before learned Single Judge, the application for leave to defend would be considered on its merits. Parties are directed to appear, for directions, before learned Single Judge on 13th July, 1998. ( 10 ) THE appeal is allowed in the above terms.