Judgment : Acclaimed jurists and accomplished Judges keep on warning that, unless adjudication is tempered with grace and kindness and if a purely mechanical approach is adopted, there is every likelihood of the very sheen of the great institution of judiciary being lost. Negative approach be never treated as virtue of a Judge. Exhibition of undue harshness in a case, which demands pity and compassion, would certainly lead to injustice. At the same time, nobody would expect a Judge to act contrary to law, in his anxiety to be kind in an otherwise demanding situation. The point in this regard can be effectively demonstrated with the facts of the present case, than through an attempt to explain it. O.S.No.653 of 2004 was filed by the 1st petitioner herein, a proprietary concern, of Smt. Bhaghyalakshmi, in the Court of V Additional Senior Civil Judge, Guntur, for recovery of certain amount from the respondent. During the pendency of that suit, Bhaghyalakshmi died and her husband, the 2nd petitioner herein came on record. Through its judgment dated 27-12-2010, the trial Court, decreed the suit, in part. The 2nd petitioner therefore, filed an appeal as regards part of the relief denied by the trial Court; before the Court of District Judge, Guntur. There was a delay of 124 days in filing the appeal. Therefore, he filed I.A.No.1395 of 2004 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act with a prayer to condone the delay. In the affidavit filed in support of the I.A., the 2nd petitioner stated that, by the time the suit was decreed in part, he was suffering from severe backache and jaundice, and he was undergoing treatment in a hospital. He has also stated that he could not move out of the bed, and as soon as he recovered, he approached his advocate, in the last week of April, 2011, and in the process, the delay occurred. He stated that the application for certified copy was obtained on 27-04-2011, and thereafter, further steps were taken. The respondent filed a counter, opposing the I.A. He simply stated that the 2nd petitioner be put to strict proof. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 22-06-2012. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is aged 79 years. The respondent filed a counter, opposing the I.A. He simply stated that the 2nd petitioner be put to strict proof. The lower Appellate Court dismissed the I.A., through order dated 22-06-2012. Hence this revision. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The respondent did not dispute the fact that the petitioner is aged 79 years. He alone had to pursue the matter in his capacity as legal representative of his wife, the 1st petitioner. It was stated that he was suffering from severe backache and jaundice, by the time the suit was decreed, in part. One can understand, if the respondent offered serious opposition to the I.A., or that he filed any documents, contradicting the plea taken by the petitioner. Curiously enough, the lower Appellate Court took upon itself, a micro analysis of all the facts. A sample of the approach can be presented by extracting paragraphs 5 and 6 of the order: “Para 5: Admittedly, the suit was decreed in part and application for certified copy was made on 15-04-2011 though suit was decreed on 27-12-2010, by the date of filing copy application the period of limitation for filing appeal was over. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to exclude the said time to prefer an appeal. Hence, the delay is to be counted from the date of judgment i.e. 27-12-2010. The present appeal is filed on 29-04-2011 with a delay of 124 days. The reason assigned by the petitioner for condonation of delay is that he was suffering from backache and jaundice, underwent treatment under Dr.Amarnath and produced a certificate dated 20-04-2011 and the Certificate discloses that the petitioner had to suffer backache – L4, L5 disc Pro/LP and Jaundice from 20-12-2010 to 01-04-2011 and advised to take bed rest from 20-12-2010 to 01-04-2011. Para 6: Even assuming that an Orthopedic Surgeon diagnosed that petitioner was suffering from jaundice also, he was advised to take bed rest from 20-12-2010 to 01-04-2011, whereas the present appeal is filed on 29-04-2011, still 28 days delay was not explained by the petitioner.” Paragraph 8 is continuation of the discussion, on the same lines. The learned Judge then proceeded to pick up certain judgments, concerning the limitation. The learned Judge then proceeded to pick up certain judgments, concerning the limitation. If one has the patience and time, he can pick up hundreds of judgments on Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which support the plea that the Court must be a bit considerate in condonation of delay in filing of appeals; and those, which insist that each day’s delay must be explained. All depends on the way, which a Judge chooses to adopt. There cannot be any hard and fast rule, in the context of condonation of delay. The Court has to see as to whether the reasons pleaded by a party are such that any reasonable person in his place would have approached the Court, earlier in point of time. Another aspect is that, it is only those, who choose litigation as a main activity, that would be prompt in presenting the applications or appeals; and others, who are busy in their own respective avocations, do not treat litigation as their primary activity. It would not be difficult to imagine the physical as well as mental condition of a person, who crossed 70 years, lost his life partner, at a time her company was very much needed, and was attacked with diseases such as, jaundice and backache. He would be virtually facing frustration, physical pain, mental agony and helplessness. It is just ununderstandable as to how a Court headed by a Judge of ordinary human qualities can expect such a person to treat it as his primary duty to approach the Court, without any delay. It is not as if that the Courts are so prompt that they are attending to the matters with utmost promptitude. Even where statutes like the Hindu Marriage Act mandate that a petition presented, invoking its provision must be disposed of within six months, matters are languishing for years together and decades. Appeals in High Courts take fairly long time for disposal. The general complaints are that many Courts do not function after lunch, and most of the time before lunch is spent for call works. Not a single casual leave or Leave Travel Concession facility is wasted by many officers. Senior citizens, in quite good numbers, keep on addressing letters to the Courts with a request to expedite the matters, in which they figure as parties. Not a single casual leave or Leave Travel Concession facility is wasted by many officers. Senior citizens, in quite good numbers, keep on addressing letters to the Courts with a request to expedite the matters, in which they figure as parties. When there was just a delay of few days, the District Court has taken upon itself, to examine each and every fact, and dismissed the IA. Fortunately, for us, people are not asking as to why the Courts are not functioning in more than half of the State, for the past several months, and what turn out the Courts are, claiming, if not what amount of hardship the litigant public are facing, for no fault of them. This Court does not at all approve the view taken by the lower Appellate Court. It is also of the view that there cannot be a better set of reasons for condonation of delay of just 124 days, than those pleaded by the petitioner. The C.R.P is accordingly allowed. The miscellaneous petition filed in the C.R.P shall also stand disposed of.