Judgment : 1. The Petitioner/Appellant has filed this Miscellaneous Petition praying to condone the delay of 479 days in preferring the A.S.SR.No.41496 of 2006. 2. In the affidavit filed by the Petitioner/Appellant/Executive Director, it is averred that the present Appeal has been projected against the Judgment in O.S.No.9880 of 1996 dated 09.01.2004 and that a permanent injunction restraining the Petitioner/Appellant from auctioning the membership interest of late V.K.Sundaram has been granted and further that the Securities and Exchange Board of India, by its circular dated 30.01.2003 informed the Appellant about its proposal to corporatise the stock exchanges based on Kania Committee Report. 3. Further, it is the case of the Petitioner/Appellant that the Securities and Exchange Board of India has been established under the Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992 and it formulated proposals for corporatisation of stock exchanges by which the membership interest of brokers is sought to be separated from the ownership interest converting the non-profit entities into profit entities with paid-up share capital and there has been a scheme of corporatisation based on the valuation analysis of the Appellant and by a letter dated 28.01.2005, a scheme has been provided for corporatisation of exchanges, which is required to be revised and as such, a revised scheme dated 28.06.2005 has been submitted. 4. According to the Petitioner/Appellant, all the members have been informed to apply for Equity Shares in the share capital of Appellant Exchange and consequently, many member brokers applied for equity shares and shares have been allotted and that the share certificates have been issued and that apart, the allotment of shares has been considered in the meeting of the Board of Directors held on 22.11.1005 and share certificates have been despatched under the cover of letter dated 16.12.2005. 5. It is the case of the Petitioner/Appellant that it has come to its notice that certain members who have been declared defaulters/ stopped trading but not declared defaulters has not applied for shares and the Petitioner has realised that in respect of one V.K.Sundaram, none of his legal heirs has applied for Equity Shares and after the scheme for corporatisation has been notified in the Gazette of India, the concept of membership has not existed any longer and that the Petitioner/Appellant Exchange is converted now as one with paid-up share capital only and hence, the auction of the membership interest will not arise. 6. 6. A perusal of the averments made in paragraph 6 of the affidavit in M.P.No.2 of 2009 indicates that the Petitioner/Appellant has realised that the Judgment in O.S.No.9880 of 1996 cannot be executed and in fact, it has worked its way out and if the 1st Respondent filed an Execution proceedings, then, the Petitioner/Appellant will be accused that it is shielding members, these changed circumstances have not been brought to the notice of this Court and in fact, the copy of the application has been filed on 12.03.2004 and the relevant copies have been made ready on 06.10.2004 and that the Appeal ought to have been filed on 03.01.2005, but because of the aforesaid reasons, there has occasioned a delay of 479 days, which is neither wilful nor wanton. 7. The core contention put forward on the side of the Petitioner/ Appellant is that the Petitioner/Appellant has noticed later that the Appeal against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court in O.S.No.9880 of 1996 dated 09.01.2004 ought to have been filed because of the simple fact that the Judgment and Decree have become unexecutable because of the policy directives of Securities and Exchange Board of India. 8. Per contra, it is the submission of the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent that the suit has been decreed after contest on 09.01.2004 and in the affidavit in M.P.No.2 of 2009, there is no whisper about the receipt of copies from the Registry and therefore, the affidavit filed on behalf of the Petitioner/Appellant is lacking in particulars and indeed, the Petitioner/Appellant has been fully aware that the deceased V.K.Sundaram has been a member of the stock exchange and he has committed default and failed to repay the amount due to the 1st Respondent and moreover, the Petitioner/ Appellant is in possession of the Membership Card of the deceased V.K.Sundaram, which includes several valuable securities including the Share Certificates of various Companies. 9. 9. According to the Learned Counsel for the 1st Respondent, the contention of the Petitioner that the Membership interest does not exist and as such, the decree has become inexecutable is not correct, since the decree for permanent injunction has been passed on 09.01.2004 and that the order of temporary injunction has been in force from the date of suit till the date of decree and in order to cover-up the delay, the Petitioner has come forward with incorrect statements and in short, there is no sufficient or good cause for the contention of the delay of 479 days and therefore, prays for dismissal of the Petition with exemplary costs. 10. It is to be noted that Section 51 of the Limitation Act enjoins upon a Court of Law to do substantial justice in disposing of the matter on merits. The term "Sufficient" or "Good Cause" is quite elastic and wide enough to apply the law in a purposeful way to achieve the ends of justice. 11. Generally, a party is not to derive benefit by filing an Appeal belatedly. A refusing to condone the delay Application/Petition may result in a genuine and meritorious case being thrown out at the early stage and cause of justice being defeated. However, if a Petition for condonation of delay is allowed, the maximum that can happen a case/ cause will be decided on merits, of course after providing due opportunities to parties and hearing them. There is no assumption or presumption that the delay has occasioned deliberately on account of malafides. The term "Sufficient Cause" ought to be applied in a common sense, pragmatic fashion, as opined by this Court. 12. Suffice it for this Court that when substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, then overriding technicalities, substantial justice will have to be delivered, for the opposite side cannot lay a claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non deliberate delay. 13. At this stage, this Court is of the considered opinion that "Judiciary" is respected not on account of its power to legalise injustice on technical grounds, but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so. 14. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the Petitioner/Appellant has come to know that the decree obtained has become unexecutable etc. 14. Be that as it may, inasmuch as the Petitioner/Appellant has come to know that the decree obtained has become unexecutable etc. and because of the fact that the Petitioner has filed the present Appeal with a delay of 479 days, this Court, by adopting a justice oriented approach, allows this Petition by directing the Petitioner/Appellant to pay a cost of Rs.1,000/- (Rupees One Thousand only) to the Honourable Chief Justice Relief Fund within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which, it is made clear that the Petition shall be dismissed automatically without any further reference to this Court.