ORDER : Navin Sinha, J. The present appeal arises from order dated 6.11.2015 rejecting Civil Misc. Application No. 12/2013 filed under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for recalling the ex-parte order dated 28.2.2013 and to hear afresh Civil Case No. 75/2012. 2. On 28.2.2013 an ex-parte order for restitution of conjugal rights was passed in favour of the Respondent in Civil Case No. 75/2012 on an application preferred by him. The Appellant is stated not to have entered appearance despite valid service of notice. 3. We have heard counsel for the parties. 4. The order dated 28.2.2013 records that registered notice was sent to the Appellant which was received by her despite which she did not appear when ex-parte proceedings were directed leading to the order for restitution of conjugal rights. 5. The Appellant then preferred an application under Order 9, Rule 13 on 10.4.2013 contending that no notice was ever received by her in Civil Case No. 75/2012. The Family Judge has noticed that the envelope dispatched to the Appellant by registered post had been received with the endorsement that the Appellant had been informed. On basis of the same it was concluded that there was valid service of notice despite which the Appellant knowingly did not appear. It was further held that the application for restoration was barred by delay of 14 days, the explanation for which was not acceptable. 6. There is a presumption that a registered letter has reached its destination by delivery to the addressee under Section 114 (e) of the Evidence Act. But the presumption is not absolute. If it is rebutted, evidence has to be led in proof of delivery. Such evidence inter-alia can be of the Postman who had gone to deliver it. Service can be said to be complete when the registered notice has either been delivered or it is returned with endorsement of the Postman that it was refused acceptance. In the latter event, evidence would again have to be led of the concerned including the Postman. A mere endorsement on the envelope that information had been given to the Appellant without even examining the Postman in question cannot lead to an absolute presumption of delivery as all possibilities remain open with regard to the time and manner in which the endorsement may have actually been made. 7. A mere endorsement on the envelope that information had been given to the Appellant without even examining the Postman in question cannot lead to an absolute presumption of delivery as all possibilities remain open with regard to the time and manner in which the endorsement may have actually been made. 7. The law of limitation has to be interpreted so as to advance the cause of justice and not to defeat the ends of justice by relying on hyper-technicalities. The present was a matter relating to two human beings arising out of a matrimonial relationship. It called for a level of sensitivity and humane approach on part of the Family Judge rather than a mechanical approach of what may be otherwise a routine litigation with regard to property or similar matters. 8. The manner in which discretion has to be exercised was observed in Sarpanch, Lonand Grampanchayat v. Ramgiri Gosavi, (1967) 3 SCR 774 observing as follows:- “3. The Authority has a discretion to condone the delay in presenting the application provided sufficient cause for the entire delay is shown to its satisfaction. This discretion like other judicial discretion must be exercised with vigilance and circumspection according to justice, common sense, and sound judgment. The discretion is to know through law what is just...” 9. We are of the considered opinion that in the nature of the case dealing with two human lives arising out of a matrimonial relationship, the delay of 14 days only in the facts and circumstances of the case with no proof that the registered notice was refused acceptance, the order dated 6.11.2015 is not sustainable and is set aside. 10. The matter is remanded to the Family Court, Bikaner to re-hear Civil Case No. 75/2012 for restitution of conjugal rights afresh in accordance with law. The parties are directed to appear before the Family Court, Bikaner on the 31st of August, 2016 where after the Court shall fix the date according to its own calendar. The appeal is allowed. Appeal allowed.