JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. 1. Heard Sri R.S. Pande, learned counsel for petitioners, Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief as submitted by learned counsel for petitioners are that plaintiff/respondent No. 3 who is owner/landlord of Shop No. 1110 Gola Bajar, Sadar Bajar, City and District Lucknow filed a suit for arrears of rent, ejectment and damages against the petitioners, registered as SCC Suit No. 121 of 2000 before Judge, Small Causes Court, Lucknow, allowed by judgment and decree dated 19.02.2008. 3. Aggrieved by the said facts, petitioner/tenant filed a revision under Section 25 of the Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887 registered as Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others), dismissed by order dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner while challenging the impugned order submits that under any circumstances if the court came to the conclusion that the revision filed by the petitioner is beyond the statutory period of limitation as provided under Provincial of Small Causes Courts Act, 1887, the same should be dismissed on the ground of delay and cannot be decided on merit. However, in the present case the respondent No. 1 had dismissed the revision on merit as well as on delay, so the said action on the part of respondent No. 1 is void ab initio and without justification. 5. He further submits that from the material on record, it clearly established that there is no delay in filing the revision in the matter in question, still the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 6. Sri S.K. Dixit, learned counsel for respondent at the very outset submits that as no delay in filing the revision and rather the same i s within time. 7. I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. 8. From the perusal of the judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed in Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others), the finding given by the revisional court while desmissing the same is as under: - ---Hindi--- 9. Further from the perusal of the record, it also transpires that the said finding given by the revisional court that the revision is time barred, contrary to the material on record. Siya Ram and others), the finding given by the revisional court while desmissing the same is as under: - ---Hindi--- 9. Further from the perusal of the record, it also transpires that the said finding given by the revisional court that the revision is time barred, contrary to the material on record. As it is clearly established from the material on record that the same is within the statutory period, if the period of obtaining the certified copy is counted. Even otherwise, it is settled proposition of law that when substantial justice and technical justice are pitted against each other, way should be given to substantial justice and the matter should not be dismissed on the ground of delay, shall be decided on merit. AS held by Hon'ble the Apex court in the case of Prem Prakash Tiwari Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Ors. reported in (2001) ILLJ 1592 SC. 10. In the case of Collector Land Acquisition Vs. Mst. Kati Ji and others,1987(13) ALR 306 (SC) Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows: - "The legislator 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 matter 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? 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 doctrine 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 accout 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 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 injsutice and is expected to do so." 11. In N. Balakrishnan Vs. M. Krishnamurthy,(1998) 7 SCC 133 the Apex Court explained the scope of limitation and condonatin 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." 12. In Smt. Prabha Vs. Ram Praskash Kalra, 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. 13. In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, 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. 13. In Vedabai alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil and others, 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. 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....." 14. In New India Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs. Smt. Shanti Misra, AIR 1976 SC 237 Hon'ble Supreme 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 expression" sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. 15. In Shakuntala Devi Jain Vs. Kuntal Kumari, AIR 1969 SC 575 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless want 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 of any delay cannot be refused to be condoned. 16. In O.P. Kathpalia Vs Lakhmir Singh, 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" 17. Moreover, in the present case, from the perusal of the judgment dated 21.12.2013 passed by respondent No. 1 in Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others), the position which emerged out is that no adequate finding/reasoning has been given while passing the same rather the same is a non-speaking order and it does not state the ground and facts on which the contention as raised by the revisionist in his revision has been met out. 18. The said action on the part of revisional authority is not in accordance with law as it is settled principle of law that if the court/authority while deciding a matter shall pass a speaking and reasoned order. 19. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. 19. In Breen Vs. Amalgamated Engg. Union, reported in 1971(1) AIIER 1148, it was held that the giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. Vs. Crabtress, reported in 1974(4) IRC 120 (NIRC) it was observed that "failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". 20. Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can be its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the later before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In other worlds, a speaking out. The inscrutable face of the sphinx' is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance. 21. For the foregoing reasons, writ petition is allowed, the order dated 21.12.2013 passed in Revision No. 34 of 2008 (Rani Devi and others Vs. Siya Ram and others) is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Additional District Judge, Court No. 13, Lucknow to decide the same on merit after giving opportunity of hearing the parties concerned, expeditiously, say, within a period of four months from the date of receiving certified copy of this order.