Judgment Dinesh Maheshwari, J.-This order shall dispose of the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in filing this review petition. 2. This review petition has been submitted against the order dated 211.2000 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4403/2000 (Gahrilal vs. State & Ors.) whereby this Court, disposed of the writ petition submitted by the present non-applicant Gahrilal without notice to any other party thus,- “This petition can conveniently be disposed of by directing the Respondent Nos. 1, 2 to decide the proceedings pending before him for cancellation of allotment of plot No. 29 in favour of the petitioner only after affording him opportunity of showing cause why it should not be cancelled giving him reasonable time to prove his claims and then proceed to decide the matter in accordance with law. The respondents shall till then maintain status quo in relation to possession of plot No. 29. The petition is accordingly disposed of .” 3. The Secretary of the present applicant Amet Grih Nirman Sahakari Samiti Limited was impleaded as Respondent No. 2 in the said writ petition. However, as aforesaid, the writ petition was disposed of simply with directions for deciding the proceedings for cancellation of the allotment of plot No. 29 only after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner and till then status quo was ordered to be maintained. 4. This review petition has been submitted, inter alia, with the submissions that proceedings had already been concluded against the petitioner which escaped from consideration at the time of decision of writ petition and that the orders passed against the writ petitioner on 21.08.1995 and 15.09.2000 were not referred by the petitioner. When the order dated 21.08.1995 was sought to be put into execution, the writ petitioner presented the order dated 211.2000 and on that basis execution proceedings have been kept in abeyance. 5. This review petition submitted on 010.2001 was not accompanied by any application for condonation for delay. When the order dated 21.08.1995 was sought to be put into execution, the writ petitioner presented the order dated 211.2000 and on that basis execution proceedings have been kept in abeyance. 5. This review petition submitted on 010.2001 was not accompanied by any application for condonation for delay. Such application was submitted on 28.01.2002 and it has been averred in the application that in the execution petition filed before the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amet, the Respondent No. 3 (writ petitioner) appeared and took time to file stay order which was passed by this Court and ultimately on 13.07.2001 made a submission that the proceedings have been dropped by the Honble Court and the petitioner took time to search out the proceedings which were decided by this Court and after obtaining certified copy of the Judgment , this review petition was being filed. 6. The writ petitioner has filed a reply to the application seeking condonation of delay and it has been contended that the order passed by this Court on 211.2000 was produced in the Court of Civil Judge (Junior Division,) Amet on 13.07.2001 and the order sheets dated 13.07.2001 and 30.08.2001 have been produced on record as Annexure R-3/1. It has been contended that in spite of that fact that the applicant came to know of the order passed by this Court dated 211.2000 on 13.07.2001 but even then further time was sought on 30.08.2001 to get clarification from the High Court and thereafter on 110.2001 the applicant informed the Civil Judge that a review petition has been filed before this Court. The writ petitioner has contended that any person approaching the Court beyond the period of limitation is required to give explanation of delay for each day beyond limitation; and that the applicant has not mentioned that fact about coming to know of the order of this Court on 13.07.2001 and after more than 1½ months, still asked for more time to file review petition on 30.08.2001 and, therefore, the applicant has not come with clean hands before this Court and has proceeded on the assumption that generally the application for condonation of delay are accepted as a matter of routine; and that such approach should be viewed very seriously. 7. 7. In relation to the other averments taken in the review application that the Respondent No. 3 (writ petitioner) appeared before the Arbitrator and filed reply but later on remained absent, consequently ex parte order was made against him on 21.08.1995 and so also filing of appeal and its dismissal, the respondent (writ petitioner) has submitted in the reply that due to grave circumstances beyond control, the proceedings could not be attended before the Arbitrator and that the appeal was also dismissed because it could not be defended due to reasons beyond his control as he was seriously ill and was suffering from heart ailment. The writ petitioner has contended that once the applicant has come to know of the order on 13.07.2001, he could have filed not only the application for certified copy of the Judgment , but also the review petition within time and no reasons have been stated and there was no bona fide or sufficient reason for condonation of delay. The applicant has filed an additional affidavit detailing out the proceedings undertaken and has also filed certified copies of the order sheets in the execution Case No. 4/1996. 8. Learned Counsel for the parties have been heard at length who have reiterated the stand taken in the application and reply. While learned Counsel for the applicant contended that the delay was occasioned in filing of the review application for the circumstances beyond control and the time was spent in obtaining necessary information about the proceedings, whereas learned Counsel for the respondent has opposed the application with the submissions that in any case the applicant has come to know about the order passed by this Court on 13.07.2001 and the explanation furnished in the application and so also in the additional affidavit do not make out any case for condonation of delay after 13.07.2001. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the material on record including the file of Writ Petition No. 4403/2000, this Court is clearly of opinion that the delay caused in filing of this review application deserves to be condoned and the review application deserves to be considered on its merits. 10. 9. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties and having examined the material on record including the file of Writ Petition No. 4403/2000, this Court is clearly of opinion that the delay caused in filing of this review application deserves to be condoned and the review application deserves to be considered on its merits. 10. It is not in dispute that this Court disposed of the writ petition by the order dated 211.2000 when it was listed before the Court on a permission granted on 211.2000 because an urgency was shown by the petitioner that “The authorities have initiated proceedings for cancellation of allotment of plot”. This Court disposed of the writ petition with the observation that the proceedings pending for cancellation of allotment of plot No. 29 be decided only after affording an opportunity of showing cause to the petitioner and giving him reasonable time to prove his case and till the decision, the status quo was ordered to be maintained. 11. In the writ petition, it has been stated that the appellate Court has dismissed the appeal wholly erroneously and before the grounds in the writ petition, it has been stated thus,-“Being aggrieved of the order dated 15.09.2000 (Annexure-4) the petitioner prefers this writ petition before this Honble Court on the following grounds among others.” 12. However, in the prayer clause as made at pages 5 and 6 of the writ petition, no prayer has been stated in relation to the order dated 15.09.2000, aggrieved of which, the writ petition was submitted. Be that as it may, this Court, considering the submissions of the petitioner, directed as aforesaid. 13. A look at the certified copies of the order sheets and execution Case No. 4/1996 placed on record by the applicant as Annexure-P/5 with the additional affidavit show that at the time of filing of the writ petition on 211.2000, the petitioner was already appearing in the execution case. The proceedings were adjourned on several occasions; earlier the time was sought by the Counsel for the Judgment -debtor (the writ petitioner) to produce stay order and ultimately order sheets were produced on 04.08.1999. On 11.04.2001, the Counsel for the decree-holder ( present review applicant) produced on record the copy of the order passed in appeal and time was sought on behalf of the Judgment -debtor for arguments on the objections. 14. On 11.04.2001, the Counsel for the decree-holder ( present review applicant) produced on record the copy of the order passed in appeal and time was sought on behalf of the Judgment -debtor for arguments on the objections. 14. Much prior to this date of 11.04.2001, the writ petition of the petitioner had already been disposed of by this Court on 211.2000 but for the reasons best known to the writ petitioner, the order passed by this Court was not brought to the notice of the Executing Court. Similarly, yet another adjournment was taken on 17.05.2001 but the order passed by this Court was not produced and the order was produced only thereafter on 13.07.2001. The writ petitioner has totally failed to state as to why the order passed by this Court as back as on 211.2000 was not produced before the Executing Court within reasonable time and at least on those occasions when the Counsel for decree-holder produced the copy of the appellate order, particularly when the order dated 211.2000 was in the knowledge of the petitioner only and nobody else has been noticed. 15. The writ petitioner himself having taken good over eight months to produce the order passed by this Court before the Executing Court has contended that the applicant having come to know on 13.07.2001 of the order passed by this Court, has failed to explain day to day delay and that the conduct of the applicant is required to be viewed seriously. 16. On a comprehension of all the facts and circumstances of this case, without commenting on the merits of the review petition at present, this Court is satisfied that the applicant cannot be said to have acted with such negligence that this review petition filed on 010.2001, after the knowledge of the order on 13.07.2001, be not considered on its merits. 17. Cause shown by the applicant inspires confidence and this Court is satisfied that in the wake of an ex parte order having been produced after eight months of its passing, it must have taken some reasonable time before the applicant, a Housing Co-operative Society, could have taken up the proceedings for filing review petition before this Court and the conduct of the applicant does not suffer from such negligence, delay or latches that its submissions be not considered on merits. 18. 18. The rules of procedure are intended to subserve the cause of justice and it is always preferred to consider a case on merits rather than driving out a party on mere technicalities. In view of the conduct of the respective parties as shown on record and the subject matter of dispute, this Court is of opinion that the review petition deserves to be considered on merits and the delay in filing the same, in the fact situating of the present case, deserves to be condoned. 19. Accordingly, the application under Section 5, Limitation Act is allowed and the delay in filing the review application is condoned. Officer shall register the review application on regular number and place the same for consideration before the Court on 03.01.2006.