Judgment :- The petitioners have filed this civil revision petition as against the order dated 9.09.2005 in unnumbered A.S.No.___ of 2005 in I.A.No.54 of 2005 on the file of the Sub-Court, Mettur in dismissing the application filed by the revision petitioners/appellants/plaintiffs under Section 5 of the Limitation Act praying to condone the delay of 3 days in preferring an appeal. 2. The First Appellate Authority, while passing the orders in I.A.No.54 of 2005 has among other things observed that the third revision petitioner/15th petitioner herein has alone stated that he has been not keeping good health because of Malaria disease and that he has been under treatment and no reason has been ascribed as to why other appellants have not filed the appeal and for each and every days delay the explanation has to be offered and the delay ascribed for 3 days is not an acceptable one and there are no merits in the application for condonation of delay and dismissed the same with costs. 3. According to the learned counsel for the revision petitioners the First Appellate Authority should have accepted the valid and genuine reason mentioned for the delay of 3 days in preferring the appeal and infact, the First Appellate Authority, namely the Learned Sub Judge, Mettur, has misdirected itself while observing that the petitioners have not explained each and every days delay and the said reasoning is an erroneous one and dismissed the petition. The fact remains that the third revision petitioner/15th petitioner Chinnappan alone has been conducting the case on behalf of the other petitioners and since he has been suffering from Malaria and therefore, prays for allowing the civil revision petition. 4. On a careful perusal of I.A.No.54 of 2005 filed by the third revision petitioner/15th petitioner shows that he has been suffering from Malaria and that after taking treatment from the doctor there has been an improvement in his health and because of his illness of Malaria he has been delayed in preferring the appeal by 3 days and has prayed for allowing the same. 5. 5. In the counter filed by the 4th respondent (and adopted by respondents 1 to 3) it is mentioned that there are totally 24 persons as petitioners in I.A.No.54 of 2005 and others ought to have filed the appeal in time and as to why the appeal has not been preferred by others, no proper reasons have been assigned and for the delay occasioned proper explanation has not been offered by the petitioners and has prayed for dismissal of the application. 6. It is to be noted that the term sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act will have to be interpreted in a meaningful and purposeful way to subserve the cause of justice. The Court of law in regard to condonation of delay application should not adopt a pedantic approach, instead it should approach the matter in issue in a liberal and pragmatic manner. Ordinarily a party does not stand to gain by lodging in an application/appeal belatedly. In fact, he runs a serious risk. On the other hand, if a party is allowed to enter into the arena of main proceedings, then the cause can be decided on merits, of course a Court of law providing due opportunities to the parties to prove their case. There is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of malafides. It is grasped that the judiciary is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds but it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. This Court is of the considered view that substantial justice will have to be delivered to the parties overriding technicalities. 7. Since the third revision petitioner in I.A.No.54 of 2005 has stated that he has been suffering from Malaria illness and taken treatment and because of his ill health he has not filed the appeal in time and that he alone has been conducting the case on behalf of other petitioners. This Court accepts the reason ascribed by him in his affidavit in I.A.No.54 of 2005 by taking a liberal and meaningful view and viewed in that perspective this Court allows the civil revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 8. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed. This Court accepts the reason ascribed by him in his affidavit in I.A.No.54 of 2005 by taking a liberal and meaningful view and viewed in that perspective this Court allows the civil revision petition in furtherance of substantial cause of justice. 8. In fine, the civil revision petition is allowed. The order passed by the Learned First Appellate Authority, namely the Learned Sub Judge, Mettur, in I.A.No.54 of 2005 in unnumbered A.S.No.___ of 2005 dated 9.09.2005 is set aside for the reasons assigned in this revision. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2009 is closed.