JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Shri Hari Om Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel for the opposite party nos.1,4 and 5, Shri Yogendra Nath Yadav, learned counsel for the opposite party nos.2 and 3 and perused the record. 2. From the perusal of the record, the position which emerged out is that by order dated 12.02.2015, opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow has dismissed the revision No.C 2014100000239 filed under Section 333 of U. P. C. H. Act on the ground that petitioner has not explained the day to day delay in filing the revision. 3. In the matter of condonation of delay the Apex Court has constantly held that the pragmatic view should be taken. In the case of Collector, Land Acquisition V. Mst. Kati Ji and others, reported in 1987 (13) ALR 306 (SC) held as follows: "The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting section 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on "merits". The expression "sufficient cause" employed by the Legislature 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 of the existence of the institution of Courts. It is common knowledge that this Court has been making a justifiably liberal approach in matters instituted in this Court. But the message does not appear to have percolated down to all the other Courts in the hierarchy." And such a liberal approach is adopted on principle as it is realized that: 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 he decided on merit 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 dectrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. 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 dectrine must be applied in a rational, common sense and pragmatic manner. 4. When substantial justice and technical considerations are pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice deserves to be preferred, for the other side can not 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 restoring to delay. In fact, he runs a serious risk. 6. It must be grapped that the 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." 4. In N. Balakrishnan V. M. Krishnamurthy reported in (1998) 7 SCC 133 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonation of delay, observing as under: "The primary function of a Court is to adjudicate the dispute between the parties and to advance substantial justice. The time-limit fixed for approaching the Court in different situations is not because on the expiry of such time a bad cause would transform into a good cause. Rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties. They are meant to see that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics, but seek their remedy for the redress of the legal injury so suffered. The law of limitation is thus founded on public policy." 5. In Smt. Prabha V. Ram Prakash Kalra reported in 1987 (Suppl.) SCC 338 the Supreme Court took the view that the Court should not adopt an injustice-oriented approach in rejecting the application for condonation of delay. 6. In Vedabai @ Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil V. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others reported in 2001 (44) ALR 577 (SC) the Apex Court made a distinction in delay and inordinate delay observing as under: "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the otherwise will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach...." 7. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. V. Smt. Shanti Misra reported in AIR 1976 SC 237 , Hon'ble Court held that discretion given by section 5 should not be defined or crystallized so as to convert a discretionary matter into a rigid rule of law. The express "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 8. In Shakuntala Devi Jain V. Kuntal Kumari reported in AIR 1969 SC 575 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want of bona fides of such inaction or negligence as would deprive a party of the protection of section 5 is proved, the application must not be thrown out or any delay can not be refused to be condoned 9. In O.P. Kathpalia V. Lakhmir Singh reported in AIR 1984 SC 1744 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that if the refusal to condone the delay results in grave miscarriage of justice, it would be a ground to condone the delay. 10. Further Hon'ble the Supreme Court in the case of Haribhai Lakhmanbhai Seedhav Vs. State of Gujarat and to others, 2009 (27) LCD 1645 has also held that the Court should not reject appeal/revision on the ground of delay and the same should be decided on merit. 11. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow is liable to be set aside. 12. In the result, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 12.02.2015 (Annexure No.1) passed by opposite party no.1/Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Lucknow Division, Lucknow is set aside with a direction that the said authority shall decide the revision expeditiously, say, within a period of six months from today after hearing the parties concerned.