JUDGMENT RAM CHAND GUPTA, J.- The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside judgment and decree dated 23.02.2010, Annexures P2 and P3 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide which application filed by petitioner/plaintiff for condonation of delay of 7 days in filing the appeal was dismissed and as a consequence thereof appeal filed by petitioner/appellant was also dismissed. 2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the whole record including the impugned order passed by learned first appellate Court. 3. It has been contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner is an old person and he is residing in rural area and he has taken the plea that due to cold weather he could not contact his counsel and that there was delay of few days in filing the appeal. 4. On the other hand, it has been argued by learned counsel for the respondents that petitioner was to show sufficient cause of delay in filing the appeal and that however, he has failed to show sufficient cause as he had obtained certified copy on 18.12.2007 and kept waiting despite the fact that period of limitation to file the appeal expired on 15.01.2008. 5. Law on the point of condonation of delay is liberal. Law is well settled that liberal approach should be taken by Court while dealing with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act especially when the delay is of shorter duration. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Oriental Aroma Chemical Industries Ltd. v. Gujarat Industrial Development Corporation and another, 2010(2) RCR(Civil) 284, law on the point of condonation of delay in filing the appeal has been summed up as under:- “8. We have considered the respective submissions. The law of limitation is founded on public policy. The legislature does not prescribe limitation with the object of destroying the rights of the parties but to ensure that they do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek remedy without delay. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. The idea is that every legal remedy must be kept alive for a period fixed by the legislature. To put it differently, the law of limitation prescribes a period within which legal remedy can be availed for redress of the legal injury. At the same time, the courts are bestowed with the power to condone the delay, if sufficient cause is shown for not availing the remedy within the stipulated time. The expression "sufficient cause" employed in Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1963 and similar other statutes is elastic enough to enable the courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which sub serves the ends of justice. Although, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in dealing with the applications for condonation of delay, this Court has justifiably advocated adoption of a liberal approach in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach where the delay is inordinate Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji (1987) 2 SCC 107, N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy 1999(2) RCR (Civil) 578: (1998) 7 SCC 123 and Vedabai v. Shantaram Baburao Patil 2001(3) RCR(Civil) 831: (2001) 9 SCC 106. In dealing with the applications for condonation of delay filed on behalf of the State and its agencies/instrumentalities this Court has, while emphasizing that same yardstick should be applied for deciding the applications for condonation of delay filed by private individuals and the State, observed that certain amount of latitude is not impermissible in the latter case because the State represents collective cause of the community and the decisions are taken by the officers/agencies at a slow pace and encumbered process of pushing the files from table to table consumes considerable time causing delay -G. Ramegowda v. Spl. Land Acquisition Officer 1988(1) RRR 555: (1988) 2 SCC 142, State of Haryana v. Chandra Mani 1996(2) RRR 82: (1996) 3 SCC 132, State of U.P. v. Harish Chandra 1996 (2) SCT 712: (1996) 9 SCC 309, State of Bihar v. Ratan Lal Sahu (1996) 10 SCC 635, State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao 2005:(2) RCR Criminal 414: 2005(2): RCR (Civil) 375: 2005 (2) Apex Criminal 75: (2005) 3 SCC 752, and State (NCT of Delhi) v. Ahmed Jaan 2008(4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 119: 2008(4) RCR(Civil) 126: 2008(4) SCT 25: 2008(2) RCR(Rent) 234: 2008(5) RAJ 214: (2008) 14 SCC 582.” 6. Hence, in view of this legal proposition, court is bestowed with power to condone the delay in filing the appeal, if sufficient cause is shown for not filing the same within the stipulated period. No straight jacket formula can be laid down in dealing with the application for condonation of delay. However, Hon’ble Apex Court in various judgments held that liberal approach should be adopted by the Courts in condoning the delay of short duration and a stricter approach, where the delay is inordinate. 7. In the present case, applicant-appellant has taken the plea that he is an old person and residing in rural area and could not contact his lawyer and hence, there is delay of seven days in filing the appeal. Hence, learned Additional District Judge, Panchkula has committed illegality in dismissing the application filed by petitioner for condonation of seven days’ delay in filing the first appeal. 8. Hence, in view of these facts, the present revision petition is accepted and the impugned order is set aside. 9. As a consequence thereof, application filed by petitioner/ appellant for condonation of delay of seven days in filing the appeal is allowed. 10. Learned first appellate Court is directed to register the appeal at its original number and decide the same on merit expeditiously as the same has become old. 11. Both the parties through their counsel are directed to appear before learned first appellate Court on 29.08.2011. Disposed of accordingly. Petition allowed.