Sanjay Karol, J. When the matter came up for hearing on 29.9.2016, the following order was passed: “Power of attorney is stated to have been filed in the Registry. To enable learned counsel or the respondent to complete her instructions, matter is adjourned. List on 7.10.2016.” 2. Plaintiff-respondent Sushil Bansal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff, filed a suit for permanent prohibitory injunction against defendants-petitioners Sahi Ram Arya and Smt. Surto Devi, hereinafter referred to as the defendants. 3. The dispute essentially pertains to the boundary of the premises owned by the parties to the lis. 4. Vide judgment and decree dated 5.12.2013, passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Civil Suit No.490/1 of 2004/2000, titled as Sushil Bansal v. Sahi Ram Arya and another, plaintiff’s suit came to be decreed in the affirmative. Defendants assailed the same, by filing an appeal. However, since there was delay of 80 days, an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay came to be filed, which stands dismissed vide impugned order dated 26.2.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.101-S/6 of 2014, titled as Sahi Ram Arya and another v. Sushil Bansal. 5. In the present petition, so filed under the provisions of Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the defendants have laid challenge to the said order. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties as also perused the record, so made available, Court is of the considered view that the present petition needs to be allowed. 7. The Court below had the jurisdiction to condone the delay. So, it is not a case of lack of jurisdiction, but if such jurisdiction is not exercised, in accordance with law, then obviously this Court would intervene to set the record right, more so when the order, lacking sensitivity, is found to be perverse. 8. It is a matter of record that the judgment and decree came to be passed on 5.12.2013 and the counsel applied for the certified copy on 7.12.2013, which was received on 28.1.2014. 9. It cannot be disputed, more particularly, in view of the ocular and documentary evidence, which has come on record, that Sahi Ram Arya met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital. His wife was attending to him. 9. It cannot be disputed, more particularly, in view of the ocular and documentary evidence, which has come on record, that Sahi Ram Arya met with an accident and remained admitted in the hospital. His wife was attending to him. This was during the period intervening the date of pronouncement and filing of the appeal. 10. Court below found the medical certificate not to have been proven on record. But then, it should not have adopted such a hyper-technical approach, more so, in the case of neighbours, who have to live, perhaps for generations, together and under all circumstances, have to maintain peace and harmony, which in fact is the ultimate goal sought to be achieved through the mechanism provided for dispensation of administration of justice. 11. One cannot forget that the parties, who are ordinarily residing in Solan, are not familiar with the procedures. 12. In fact, plaintiff ought to have shown grace in not contesting the application, on account of delay and perhaps assisted the Court, on the merits of the appeal, which unfortunately was also found to be lacking before this Court. 13. Yes, delay confers a right upon a party, but then Court cannot adopt such a pedantic approach, more so in the case of a litigant, who is undergoing hardship and suffering well beyond its control. The only mistake of the defendants was that they could not prove the medical certificate in accordance with law. But then it is not that they did not heed to the advice of their counsel. It is not the case of the plaintiff, that the defendants are chronic litigants. Also they do not belong to a family of lawyers or have lawyers as friends. 14. In the instant case, mistake, if any, in not proving the document cannot be attributed to the party. Even otherwise statement of the party was sufficient enough to have condoned the delay, which in any event is neither inordinate nor can be said to be deliberate. Accident(s) can happen to anyone. This alone prevented the defendants from tiling the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.2.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.101-S/6 of 2014, titled as Sahi Ram Arya and another v. Sushil Bansal is set aside. This alone prevented the defendants from tiling the appeal within the prescribed period of limitation. 15. Hence, the present petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 26.2.2016, passed by the learned District Judge, Solan, District Solan, Himachal Pradesh, in Case No.101-S/6 of 2014, titled as Sahi Ram Arya and another v. Sushil Bansal is set aside. Delay in filing the appeal is condoned. Appeal be heard on merits. 16. Any observation made hereinabove shall have no bearing whatsoever on the merits of the main case. Parties, through their learned counsel, are directed to appear before the Court below on 15.11.2016. Petition stands disposed of, so also pending applications, if any.