JUDGMENT Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J. A suit instituted by the plaintiff-respondent, for specific performance, was decreed. The decree was challenged by filing an appeal under Section 96 CPC. It appears that the appeal itself was dismissed in default on 6.2.2005. A restoration application thereafter was filed on 15.10.2009 with the allegation that the defendant-appellant is an illiterate person, who was dependent upon his lawyer, who was doing parivi of his case and he has not received any information with regard to dismissal of the appeal itself. It was further stated that only when the decree was put to execution and the notices therein were issued that the defendant-petitioner came to know about such dismissal of appeal, in default, immediately thereafter application for condonation of delay has been filed. 2. The appellate court, however, rejected the delay condonation application by observing that day to day explanation for the delay in filing of the restoration application has not been furnished and, therefore, the delay condonation application has been rejected. 3. Aggrieved by the said order, the defendants-petitioners have filed the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that there was no intentional default on part of the defendants-petitioners inasmuch he was dependent upon his counsel, who did not appear on the date fixed in the matter and also failed to intimate the petitioners about the dismissal of appeal in default. It is stated that the land in question was the only source of livelihood for the defendants, which also has been transferred, pursuant to the decree of specific performance. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the defendants have been put to a great hardship inasmuch as an illiterate person has lost his only means of survival, without a due contest. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the court ought to have adopted a liberal approach for condoning the delay and rejection of application on the facts of the present case, cannot be justified. 5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Nathu KHan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2013 (7) ADJ 430 , para Nos. 9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as Under: - "The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. 5. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of this Court in Nathu KHan Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2013 (7) ADJ 430 , para Nos. 9 to 11 of the aforesaid judgment reads as Under: - "The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. ( JT 1987 (1) SC 537 = 1987 (2) SCR 387 ) has given following guidelines while dealing with the delay condonation application : - 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 mala fides. 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 legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 6. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Singh and others reported in JT 2000 (5) 389 after considering various cases of the Apex Court on condonation of delay application has held : Para 12................ " The expression 'sufficient cause' should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented process approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient case for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of pragmatic approach in justice -oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of pragmatic approach in justice -oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis-a-vis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause". 7. The above principle has been taken care of in numerous cases by the Hon'ble Apex Court thereafter. Reference may be given to Gangadeep Pratisthan Private Ltd. and others Vs. Messrs. Mechano and others reported in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court Page 1958 and Jeet Narain and another Vs. Govind Prasad and others reported in 2010 (3) ADJ SC 470". 8. Reliance has also been placed upon the decision of this Court in Yogendra Ram Tripathi and others Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, 2013 (4) ADJ 276 , para Nos. 4 to 8 of the aforesaid judgment reads as Under: - .."The law relating to condonation of delay has been considered time and again. The Apex Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag & Anr. Vs. Mst. Katiji & Ors. ( JT 1987 (1) SC 537 = 1987 (2) SCR 387 ) has given following guidelines while dealing with the delay condonation application : - 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 mala fides. A litigant does not stand to benefit by resorting to delay. In fact he runs a serious risk. 6. 5. There is no presumption that delay is occasioned deliberately, or on account of culpable negligence, or on account of mala fides. 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 legalize injustice on technical grounds but because it is capable of removing injustice and is expected to do so." 5..As would appear, for condonation of delay, the Hon'ble Apex court has taken the view that the purpose of establishment of the Court is to impart substantial justice to the parties and not to legalize injustice on technicalities. It has also been held by the Supreme Court that day to day explanation means plausible explanation. 9. The Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar and others Vs. Kameshwar Singh and others reported in JT 2000 (5) 389 after considering various cases of the Apex Court on condonation of delay application has held : Para 12................ " The expression 'sufficient cause' should, therefore, be considered with pragmatism in justice-oriented process approach rather than the technical detention of sufficient case for explaining every day's delay. The factors which are peculiar to and characteristic of the functioning of pragmatic approach in justice -oriented process. The court should decide the matters on merits unless the case is hopelessly without merit. No separate standards to determine the cause laid by the State vis- avis private litigant could be laid to prove strict standards of sufficient cause". Para 13................. " It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter,acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammelled by the conclusion of the lower court". 10. This view has further been affirmed by the Apex Court in the case of Gangadeep Pratisthan Private Ltd. and others Vs. Messrs. Mechano and others reported in A.I.R. 2005 Supreme Court Page 1958. 11. Thereafter in numerous cases, the Apex Court took the view that while considering the matter of condonation of delay, the merit of the case has to be seen. It has also been held that the purpose of fixing limitation to approach the court is not to take away the right of appeal but certainly if some inconvenience have been caused to the otherside, the Court can compensate the otherside by imposing the cost instead of throwing the matter on limitation. The Apex Court in the case of Jeet Narain and another Vs. Govind Prasad and others reported in 2010 (3) ADJ SC 470 has condoned the delay of 26 years looking into the merit of the case". 12. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that the petitioner was negligent in pursuing the appeal and he can not be permitted to blame others for his default. It is also submitted that pursuant to the decree of the specific performance, a sale-deed has also been executed and the land has been further transferred. 13. Having considered the respective submissions, this court finds that the allegations made in the application and before this court that the plaintiff is an illiterate person who was dependent upon the land in question, which was the only source of his livelihood, is not seriously disputed. It also emerges from the record that pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed , a sale deed has also been executed. It also emerges from the record that pursuant to the decree for specific performance passed , a sale deed has also been executed. In such circumstances, it does not appear that the defendant was to gain in any manner, on account of the pendency of the proceedings or negligence on his part was intentional as it has caused prejudice to him. The submission advanced that it was due to lack of intimation by the counsel concerned that the appellant could not move the application earlier, has also not disputed. 14. From the materials available on record, it appears that after engaging a fresh counsel, a restoration was moved. In such circumstances, the court was required to have adopted a liberal approach in dealing with the delay condonation application and the claim of the petitioner ought not to have been rejected. The Court was required to adopt a justice oriented approach and if an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was allowed, the petitioner will have an opportunity of hearing in the matter. 15. In such view of the matter, this court is of the opinion that the order impugned cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. Delay in filing the restoration application is condoned. The appellate court is directed to consider the restoration matter afresh and thereafter proceed with the matter, in accordance with law, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. 16. Subject to the observations made above, petition stands disposed of finally.