Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is directed, against the order dated 13.09.06, rendered by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, whereby, it dismissed the application for condonation of delay of 5/7 days, in filing the appeal. 2. The suit filed by the plaintiff/revision-petitioner for declaration and consequential relief was dismissed. Feeling aggrieved, he preferred an appeal, alongwith which, he also moved an application for condonation of delay of 5/7 days, in instituting the same. 3. The Court of Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide order dated 13.09.06, dismissed that application, as also the appeal, being barred by time. 4. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision-petition, has been filed by the revision-petitioner. 5. I have heard the Counsel for the revision-petitioner, and have gone through the record of the case, carefully. 6. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner, submitted that the Court, was required to adopt a very liberal approach, in condoning the delay of merely 5/7 days, in filing the appeal. He further submitted that, on account of ailment of the members of the family of the appellant/revision-petitioner, he could not file the appeal, in time, and that could be said to be sufficient cause for condonation of delay. He further submitted that the Appellate Court, wrongly dismissed the application, as also the appeal. 7. The Counsel for the respondents, however, submitted that no sufficient cause, was shown by the appellant/revision-petitioner, for condonation of delay of 5/7 days, and the Court below, was right, in dismissing the application. 8. After giving my thoughtful consideration, to the rival contentions, raised by the Counsel for the parties, in my considered opinion, the revision-petition, deserves to be accepted, for the reasons to be recorded, hereinafter. There was only delay of 5/7 days, in filing the appeal. The delay, in filing the appeal, therefore, could not be said to be very long. No doubt, the Court below, took up the plea that, no medical certificate, with regard to the ailment of the family members of the appellant/revision-petitioner, was produced. There was only delay of 5/7 days, in filing the appeal. The delay, in filing the appeal, therefore, could not be said to be very long. No doubt, the Court below, took up the plea that, no medical certificate, with regard to the ailment of the family members of the appellant/revision-petitioner, was produced. It may be stated here, that as and when a person, suffers from some ailment, all of a sudden, he, in the first instance, goes to the doctor, who prescribes him some medicines, and after taking those medicines, if he gets well, that does not mean, that in the absence of production of medical certificate, he or his family members, could not be said to be ill. The Court below, was required to adopt a very liberal approach, in condoning the delay of 5/7 days, in filing the appeal. The procedure is, in the ultimate, the handmaid of justice, meant to sub-serve the ends thereof, than to thwart the same. The procedural wrangles, cannot be allowed to stay, in the way of grant of substantial justice. When substantial justice, and the procedural wrangles are pitted, against each other, then the former will prevail over the latter. There was, therefore, sufficient cause, for condonation of delay. The order impugned, suffers from illegality and perversity, warranting the interference of this Court, in its revisional jurisdiction, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and is liable to be set aside. 9. For the reasons recorded above, the revision-petition, is accepted. The order impugned, is set aside, subject to the payment of cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The delay in filing the appeal is condoned. The parties are directed to appear in the Appellate Court, on 04.09.09. The Appellate Court, shall decide the same, on merits.