JUDGMENT : A.P. Bhangale, J. 1. The appellants herein are unsuccessful defendants No. 1 to 4 in the trial Court. The facts which appear prima facie are that a suit for partition of the ancestral property and possession was instituted in the Court of Civil Judge, JD, Warud, District Amravati. The dispute was regarding share in ancestral land Gat No. 238 admeasuring 4.35 HR situated at Musalkhed, Tahsil Warud, District Amravati. The land was originally owned by Mahadeo Bhusari who died on 15.8.1983 leaving behind him his three sons viz. Baburao, Nilkanth and Purushottam as also daughter-in-law Indirabai of his predeceased son Pundlik and daughter Indutai. It is alleged that Indutai had relinquished her share in the joint Hindu family property according to appellant. As a result of relinquishment by Indutai, respondents (original plaintiffs) claiming through Indutai could not have received share in the joint Hindu family property which was erroneously granted by the trial Court in RCS No. 69 of 2008, decided on 28.6.2011 by the Civil Judge, JD, Warud. Decree passed by the trial Court was challenged in the District Court, Amravati with an application for condonation of delay in filing First Appeal. However, learned 1st appellate Judge refused to condone delay on the ground that sufficient cause was not made out. 2. According to appellants, learned 1st appellate Judge ought to have adopted justice oriented approach instead of throwing away the appeal on technical plea of delay and dismissing the same without adverting to merits of the suit. 3. In the light of facts and circumstances which were revealed in the trial Court, the appellants herein could have been granted just opportunity to contest the dispute at the stage of 1st appeal instead of rejecting the application for condonation of delay. In the larger interest of justice, it is contended that when delay occurred it was neither deliberate nor intentional, the appellants would not have gained any unfair advantage but could have brought real facts before the Court for just and fair decision in the larger interest of justice. Hence, I am of the opinion after hearing submissions at the Bar that delay could have been condoned by learned 1st appellate Judge particularly, considering that the final Court of Facts needs to administer substantial justice on merit by determining real controversy between the parties. Hence, I am of the opinion after hearing submissions at the Bar that delay could have been condoned by learned 1st appellate Judge particularly, considering that the final Court of Facts needs to administer substantial justice on merit by determining real controversy between the parties. For that purpose, liberal justice oriented approach is needed in the matter of condonation of delay in filing Regular Civil Appeal to advance the cause of justice. Unless the delay is inordinate, deliberate and inexcusable, costs may be awarded to compensate the other side. In the result, therefore, impugned judgment and order is quashed and set aside. Delay caused in filing Regular Civil Appeal is hereby condoned. Learned 1st appellate Judge (District Judge. Amravati) shall proceed to get the appeal registered and shall decide the same on merit in accordance with law, in the interest of substantial justice to be administered in the case. Appeal stands disposed of accordingly with no order as to costs. Parties to appear before 1st appellate Court on 21st April 2014. 1st Appellate Court shall decide appeal as expeditiously as possible. Stay to the execution of decree to operate till the parties appear before the Court on 21st April 2014.