Judgment Viney Mittal, J. 1. This order shall dispose of three Revision Petitions being C.R. No. 1182 of 1993, C.R. No. 1183 of 1993 and C.R. No. 1184 of 1993 as all the petitions arise out of the similar orders passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala whereby the appeal filed by the defendant petitioner has been dismissed as time barred. 2. The plaintiff Narinder Singh filed suit for mandatory injunction for directing the defendants to deliver or hand over the possession of the disputed vacant site mentioned in the plaint. The suit was contested by the defendants. However, vide judgment dated March 1, 1989, the suit of the plaintiff was decreed. 3. Appeal was filed against the said order by the defendants-petitioner before the Learned Additional District Judge on January 11, 1990. The appeal was thus barred by limitation. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed alongwith appeal for condonation of delay. It was claimed in the aforesaid application that the earlier Manager of Gaushala Committee had since retired and had not brought the aforesaid factum of decreeing of the suit of the plaintiff to the notice of the new Manager. Accordingly, the new Manager came to know about the passing of the said decree only when execution thereof was taken out by the plaintiff-decree holder. It was at this stage when the appeal was filed with an application for condonation of delay. 4. It was further claimed that delay in filing the appeal was neither malafide nor intentional and had been caused because of the aforesaid facts. 5. Learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide order dated March 29, 1993, refused to condone the delay and accordingly dismissed the appeal as barred by limitation. The aforesaid order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge has been challenged by the defendant-petitioner before this Court through the present petition. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the record of the case. 7. In my considered view, the present petition deserves to succeed. 8. The learned Additional District Judge of course has recorded the evidence of the parties but have adopted a hypertechnical approach while refusing to condone the delay. 6. I have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the record of the case. 7. In my considered view, the present petition deserves to succeed. 8. The learned Additional District Judge of course has recorded the evidence of the parties but have adopted a hypertechnical approach while refusing to condone the delay. It is well settled by now that rights of the parties are to be adjudicated upon merits of the controversy and a party should not be thrown out merely on technicalities. Even if a party has been negligent in defending the proceedings still the other party can be compensated through costs. 9. Accordingly, the present revision petitions are allowed. The order dated March 29, 1993 passed by Additional District Judge, Patiala is set aside and consequently the appeal filed by the defendant-petitioner against the judgment and decree dated March 1, 1989 are restored back to its original number with Rs. 5,000/- as cost (in each Revision Petition). The payment of costs would be condition precedent for permitting the defendants to prosecute the first appeal before the learned Additional District Judge. 10. The learned Additional District Judge, Patiala shall now decide the appeal on merits as early as possible and in any case, within a period of six months from the date the parties appear before the Additional District Judge, Patiala. Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.