JUDGMENT Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge (Oral). The appellants-applicants have filed the present application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer for recalling the order dated 20.10.2008 and with the further prayer to restore the appeal to its original number and hearing the same on merits. 2.It has been averred therein that the appeal had been listed before this Court on 20.10.2008 when the Court had granted the appellants last opportunity to get served the respondent No.1(d) subject to cost of ‘400/-. In the event of non-taking of steps, the appeal was ordered to be dismissed for want of prosecution without any reference to Court. 3.It is alleged that the applicants are illiterate, rustic villagers and no letters intimating this fact were received from the counsel, though when they contacted the counsel, they were shown dispatch numbers of these letters. It is alleged that probably the respondents, who are head-strong persons may have connivance with the postman manipulated the affairs in not allowing these letters to reach the appellants/applicants. Recently, the respondents had proclaimed that the appeal of the applicants stood dismissed and it is then that the applicants contacted their counsel and on inspection of the file, they acquired knowledge regarding the order dated 20.10.2008. 4.It is further alleged that the appeal has been dismissed for want of taking steps for the service of respondent No.1(d), who was one Swaru. It is further stated that, infact, Shri Swaru’s name had been wrongly mentioned in the application at Page No.73 of the file as otherwise he is not the legal representative of Smt. Chepri Devi. It is lastly stated that there was communication gap between the applicants and the counsel because infact the name of legal representative No.1(d) was required to be deleted and, in such a situation, there was no negligence on the part of the applicants to prosecute the appeal. 5.The respondents, on the other hand, have filed reply wherein, in the preliminary submissions, they have alleged that the applicants have been grossly negligent in not pursuing the case. 5.The respondents, on the other hand, have filed reply wherein, in the preliminary submissions, they have alleged that the applicants have been grossly negligent in not pursuing the case. Repeated opportunities had been granted to the applicants to take steps for the service of legal representative of respondent No.1, Chepri Devi, particularly, respondent No.1(d) Swaru in CMP No.367 of 2006, however, the applicants did not appear before the Additional Registrar on 03.09.2008 and 18.08.2008 and despite notices to this effect no steps had been taken till 20.10.2008 when final opportunity subject to cost was granted to the applicants. It is submitted that the present application has been filed in August, 2013 after gross and inordinate delay. It is denied that all the legal representatives of deceased respondent No.1, Chepri Devi, are represented pursuant to an application to this effect. The respondents have further claimed that there is no just cause for recalling the order or setting aside the order, more particularly, when the same was passed nearly five years back and have accordingly prayed for dismissal of the application. 6.I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the records of the case. Without going into factual matrix of the case, whether all the legal representatives of Chepri were already on record or not, I proceed to decide the application on its merits. No doubt, the appellants had committed default, but the fact nonetheless remains that they had some explanation to offer which explanation, infact, has not been denied by the respondents in their reply. What infact has been stated in the application and in reply thereto has been reproduced by me in paragraph-5 supra. In such circumstances, when there appears to be a case of communication gap as alleged by the applicants, it would be too harsh not to recall the order dated 20.10.2008 and restore the appeal to its original number and hear it on merits. 7.It is settled law that procedure is hand-maid and not mistress of law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 SC 1177 held as follows:- “8 .We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in The State of Punjab and another v. Shamlal Murari and another AIR 1976 SC 1177 held as follows:- “8 .We must always remember that processual law is not to be a tyrant but a servant, not an obstruction but an aid to justice. It has been wisely observed that procedural prescriptions are the hand-maid and not the mistress, a lubricant, not a resistant in the administration of justice. Where the non-compliance tho’ procedural will thwart fair hearing or prejudice doing of justice to parties, the rule is mandatory. But grammar apart, if the breach can be corrected without injury to a just disposal of the case, we should not enthrone a regulatory requirement into a dominant desideratum. After all, Courts are to do justice, not to wreck this end product on technicalities. Viewed in this perspective, even what is regarded as mandatory traditionally may, perhaps, have to be moderated into wholesome directions to be complied with in time or in extended time “ One cannot be oblivious that a judicial procedure has been framed for the furtherance of the justice and not to defeat it, the Court cannot refuse in-aid to justice on merely technical grounds. Infact, procedures are only to subserve and facilitate the cause of justice and not govern or obstruct it. 8. Mr.K.D.Sood, learned Senior Advocate has rightly contended that there is a considerable delay in filing of the application. But, I do not agree to the submission that no sufficient cause has been shown whereby the delay in filing of the application cannot be condoned. The applicants have given reasonable and plausible explanation in their application as to why they could not approach the Court within the prescribed period which averments are duly supported by an affidavit of one of the applicants. Even otherwise, the explanation “sufficient cause” has to be considered with pragmatism in justice- orientated approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient cause for explaining every day’s delay. The power to condone delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on merits. 9. The power to condone delay in approaching the Court has been conferred upon the Courts to enable them to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of the matters on merits. 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Collector, Land Acquisition v. Katiji (1987)2 SCC107 held that the expression “sufficient cause” employed by the legislature in the Limitation Act is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice- that being the life purpose for the existence of the institution of courts. It was further observed that a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: (SCC p.108, para 3) “1. Ordinarily a litigant does not stand to benefit by lodging an appeal late. 2. Refusing to condone delay can result in a meritorious matter being thrown out at the very threshold and cause of justice being defeated. As against this when delay is condoned the highest that can happen is that a cause would be decided on merits after hearing the parties. 3. ‘Every day’s delay must be explained’ does not mean that a pedantic approach should be made. Why not every hour’s delay, every second’s delay? The doctrine must be applied in a rational common sense pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred for the other side cannot claim to have vested right in injustice being done because of a non-deliberate delay. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of malafides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grasped 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.” 10.Thus, in my considered view, from the aforesaid discussion, this application deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed and the order dated 20.10.2008 is ordered to be recalled and the appeal is directed to be restored to its original number accordingly.